4 May 2013
IPCC Secretariat, Geneva
Gentlemen,
Request for correction of a serious inaccuracy in the contribution of Working Group 1 to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report
As an Expert Reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report, 2013, and in accordance with the IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, I am writing to report a serious inaccuracy in the contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report, 2007. As a result of the inaccuracy, one of the report’s central conclusions was inappropriately drawn. The inaccuracy could have been avoided in the context of the information available at the time the report was written. It does not reflect new knowledge, scientific information, additional sources or a mere difference of opinion. I request that the inaccuracy be corrected and the correction published in the Errata for Working Group I’s contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report. No such correction currently appears in the Errata.
The error lies in a graph of the HadCRUt global temperature anomalies from 1850-2005, which appears twice in the Fourth Assessment Report. The graph purports to show, but does not show, that the rate of global warming has been accelerating and that the accelerated global warming is anthropogenic.
I understand that the graph as submitted to the IPCC Secretariat in the scientists’ final draft of the Fourth Assessment Report was substantially as it appears below (though axial notations are mine):
The above graph appears correct. It should be restored in place of the seriously inaccurate version that was substituted for it in at least two places in the Fourth Assessment Report.
The inaccurate version of the graph first appears in Chapter 3, Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change, of the contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report, where it is labelled “Frequently Asked Questions FAQ 3.1, Figure 1”. It is reproduced below:
The caption (in part) reads as follows:
“… Annual global mean observed temperatures from the HadCRUt3 dataset (black dots) along with simple fits to the data. The left hand axis shows anomalies relative to the 1961 to 1990 average and the right hand axis shows the estimated actual temperature (°C). Linear trend fits to the last 25 (yellow), 50 (orange), 100 (purple) and 150 years (red) are shown, and correspond to 1981-2005, 1956-2005, 1906-2005, and 1856-2005, respectively. Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming. The blue curve is a smoothed depiction to capture the decadal variations. To give an idea of whether the fluctuations are meaningful, decadal 5% to 95% (light blue) error ranges about that line are given (accordingly, annual values do exceed those limits). Results from climate models driven by estimated radiative forcings for the 20th century (Chapter 9) suggest that there was little change prior to about 1915, and that a substantial fraction of the early 20th-century change was contributed by naturally occurring influences including solar radiation changes, volcanism and natural variability. From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialisation following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s …”
The text accompanying the defective diagram says, inter alia –
“An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years …”
The diagram also appears in the Technical Summary, where the accompanying text says, inter alia –
“The rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.”
My note of a lecture by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri at the University of New South Wales five years ago indicates that he displayed the offending diagram, explained that it showed “surface temperature going back to the beginning of industrialization” [actually only to 1850], and commented as follows –
“… In recent years this graph has become much steeper. If you draw a line through the last 100 years, the slope is a 0.74 C° line. But if you look at the last 50 years, [it is] almost twice as steep as the total 100-year period. So it would be appropriate to conclude that we are now at a stage where warming is taking place much faster … So I’d like to emphasize the fact that we are at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate, and clearly if we don’t bring about some changes we’d have much faster changes in future.”
Dr. Pachauri’s citation of and commentary upon the graph indicate that it is at the very heart of the IPCC’s central message that the rate of warming is itself accelerating. By implication, Dr. Pachauri attributes the acceleration to us when he says that we shall have to “bring about some changes” or there will be “much faster changes in future”.
This particular message of the IPCC has been widely reproduced in the news media and, in particular, in the science journals. For instance, the December 2007 edition of Physics Today displays this diagram, and only this diagram, when praising Al Gore and the IPCC for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
The defective graph has also been relied upon by agencies of government, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency, which displays it prominently in the Technical Support Document accompanying its December 2009 finding, carefully timed to coincide with the Copenhagen climate conference, that CO2 and five other classes of greenhouse gas are an “endangerment” to human health.
The EPA continued to rely upon the graph even after having received the following plainly-worded warning from the South-Eastern Legal Foundation, acting on behalf of clients –
“The graph, like most others in your documentation, was lifted from a document of the IPCC – its 2007 assessment report. The graph purports to demonstrate, but does not in reality demonstrate, that the rate of “global warming” is itself increasing. No reasonable agency of government, acting responsibly and with due scientific competence and impartiality, would have unquestioningly reproduced such a graph. No competent and genuinely independent peer-reviewer would have sanctioned the use of this graph. However, not one of the 11 ‘Federal expert reviewers’ whom you chose informed you that this graph was an instance of a well-known statistical fallacy. One of the ‘expert’ reviewers was the lead author of the IPCC document in which the defective graph first appeared.
“It is instances such as this that underline the lack of wisdom of your repetition of the defective and highly-politicized analyses issued by the IPCC, and of your failure to ensure that genuinely independent scientific reviewers were invited to scrutinize your documentation to prevent you from merely repeating bad scientific errors such as that which the IPCC’s bogus graph represents.”
As the EPA’s Technical Support Document itself admits (though with characteristically self-serving illogicality it ignores its own admission in the remainder of the same sentence) –
“Trends may be sensitive to changes of start date in a time series …”
The EPA refused to remove the defective graph, as it should have done.
Be that as it may, the EPA’s citation of the defective graph illustrates the considerable influence it has had on public policy. Indeed, it has also had an adverse influence on the standing of the IPCC. When I showed the graph to the Republican caucus of the Ways and Means Committee of the US Congress when giving testimony before the Committee some years ago, the then ranking member of the Committee said at once, “They can’t have done that!” He turned to his colleagues and said:
“Gentlemen, we have seen all that we need to see about whether any reliance can be placed on the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
That was the moment when the Republican Party in the US decided that it would no longer support the Democrats in their belief that the IPCC’s science could be relied upon and that, therefore, Man was exercising a potentially damaging influence on global climate.
The reasons why the graph as published is defective follow. Much of the analysis may seem trivial, but the aim is to make the argument as accessible as possible to officials of the IPCC and of governments who finalize the IPCC’s reports but may not have a background in elementary statistics.
On any curve of a time-series representing stochastic data (from the Greek στόχос, “a guess”, since stochastic data are inherently volatile and unpredictable, following no discernible pattern), an artful choice of endpoints for a set including more than one least-squares linear-regression trend permits fabrication, at will, of any desired spurious acceleration or deceleration in the trend.
It will now be shown, using the same IPCC technique on the same data but carefully selecting different endpoints, that it is possible to generate opposite results, demonstrating the technique to be defective.
In the diagram below, the slope of the IPCC’s trend-line for 1905-2005 (here shown as an arrowed green line) is half the slope of the trend-line for 1905-1945:
It would be as inappropriate to draw from the carefully-chosen trend-lines on the above graph the conclusion that the rate of global warming has decelerated as it was for the IPCC to draw from its artfully-chosen trend-lines the opposite conclusion that the rate of global warming is accelerating. The example is given to illustrate the falsity of the IPCC’s technique, and to show how easily one may obtain any desired result by a capricious but careful choice of endpoints for multiple trend-lines.
By way of a heuristic to demonstrate why the technique used by the IPCC is an abuse of statistical method, consider a sine-wave, propagated horizontally from left to right ad infinitum. A segment of the wave is shown here. The slope of the curve is by definition zero –
Or is it zero? We take a short segment of the sine-wave terminating at some local minimum (at right, above), and calculate four overlapping least-squares linear-regression trends on the data in that segment, each terminating at that rightward minimum.
The first trend-line in the graph below covers the whole segment that is displayed, but the starting-points of the three remaining trend-lines are carefully chosen, starting successively closer to the endpoint of the displayed segment of the curve:
Each successively-commencing trend-line – the red, the purple, the orange and the yellow – has a steeper slope than its predecessor, just as in the IPCC’s graph. On this evidence, the curve of the sine-wave seems not merely to be following a falling trend, but a falling trend that is in an accelerated and ever-more-precipitate decline.
Yet it is self-evident that the true long-run trend of a sine-wave is zero by definition. For this reason, the statistical technique is unquestionably false, as may be confirmed by shifting the phase of the sine-wave by half a cycle to right or left:
If the trend-lines are repositioned, the graph now appears to exhibit not merely a rising trend but an ever-more-rapidly climbing trend, the opposite of the (equally false) result that was obtained previously.
Where, then, lies the truth about the trend in mean global surface temperatures over the past century and a half? Remove most of the trend-lines from the IPCC’s deceptive graph, and replace them with trend-lines marking the periods of the most rapid warming during the period that persisted for more than a decade.
This technique is legitimate: a narrow and straightforward question is being asked about which periods exhibited the fastest supra-decadal warming rate during the instrumental record.
The rate of warming in the 26 years 1975-2001 (during which, at least in theory, humankind’s emissions of CO2 might have been sufficient to exercise some small influence on the global temperature trend) is not unique. During two previous periods – 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 – the warming rate was identical, within the measurement uncertainty shown on the graph, to that from 1975-2001. Yet it is agreed among all parties that we cannot have had any measurable effect on temperature trends in the two earlier periods.
On 23 April, 2009, Lord Leach of Fairfield asked Her Majesty’s Government –
“… whether the rate of increase in global mean surface temperatures between 1975 and 1998 [His Lordship chose that date rather than 2001] was similar to the rates of increase observed between 1860 and 1880 and between 1910 and 1940 …”
Lord Hunt of King’s Heath replied –
“Observations collated at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit indicate that the rate of increase in global average surface temperature between 1975 and 1998 was similar to the rates of increase observed between 1860 and 1880 and between 1910 and 1940 (approximately 0.16 C° per decade).
“This observation has no implications for our policy on anthropogenic warming. Little can be deduced from relatively short trends in the temperature record taken in isolation from the overall picture. …”
Yet the IPCC, in its defective graph, had indeed sought to deduce from a “relatively short trend” in the data – namely, the last 25 years – that the magnitude of the trend was exceptional, when, as Her Majesty’s Government were compelled to admit upon questioning, the trend over that period had two previous precedents occurring at approximately 60-year intervals in the 150-year instrumental record:
Surely the correct conclusion is that – so far, at any rate – there is no discernible human influence on global temperature: merely a continuation of the recovery of global temperatures from the Little Ice Age (a recovery that began 300 years ago), overlaid by a ~60-year periodicity in global temperature that appears to exhibit some correlation (not necessarily causative) with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index.
None of these considerations rule out a gentle (though not yet plainly detectable) influence on global temperature from rising CO2 concentrations. However, examination of the 163-year record of global mean surface temperature anomalies does appear to indicate –
Ø that there has been no acceleration in the warming rate, which, at its supra-decadal maximum from 1976-2001, was no greater than in 1860-1880 or 1910-1940;
Ø that most of the warming from 1950 to date must have been caused not by us but by natural variability in the climate, perhaps including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation; and
Ø that the mean decadal warming rate of 0.38 C°/decade that the IPCC predicts for the next 87 years as its central estimate on the A2 emissions scenario is almost two and a half times the maximum decadal warming rate observed over the past 161 years, which was just 0.16 C°/decade.
The last conclusion raises questions about the reliability of the IPCC’s perhaps excessive central climate-sensitivity estimate. The trend on the arithmetic mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies from January 2001 to April 2013 shows no acceleration in the rate of warming. Instead, for 12 years the trend has been statistically indistinguishable from zero:
Dr. Pachauri, the science chairman of the IPCC, admitted in Melbourne early in 2013 that there had been a 17-year “pause” in global warming. I reported the defective IPCC graph in person and in writing to him some time ago, but, though he could not fault my analysis, he has not had the graph corrected.
Bearing in mind the very substantial sums that the IPCC is receiving on the pretext inter alia of its inappropriate conclusion from the defective graph that the rate of warming is accelerating and that we are to blame for the acceleration, the IPCC’s continued reliance upon the defective graph in its Fourth Assessment Report, on its website and in several lectures by its science chairman may constitute fraud.
On the advice of a barrister and also of a judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court, police are shortly to be invited to consider whether the continued use of the IPCC’s defective graph by the Victoria University of Wellington on its public website constitutes fraud. Therefore, I should be grateful if you would let me know if I have misunderstood anything, and, if so, explain why the IPCC considers it justifiable, on the basis of the relative slopes of multiple arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines, to draw the conclusion that the rate of global warming is accelerating and that we are to blame, when the observed data suggest no such acceleration. Otherwise, I should be grateful if you would simply correct the defective graph.
The IPCC cannot be expected to be taken seriously if apparently criminal dishonesties of this magnitude are persisted in and widely cited both by senior IPCC officials and by third parties allied to or supportive of the IPCC even long after the dishonesties have been drawn to its attention.
Copies of this letter go to the Minister for Climate Change in the House of Lords and to the Economic Affairs Committee of the House, which has taken an active interest in the errors of scientific rigour which have arisen because the IPCC is not a scientific body but a political entity whose founding document obliges it to act upon the questionable assumption that Man’s influence on the Earth’s climate will prove catastrophic unless it be radically abated.
Yours faithfully,
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Thanks, Christopher. FAQ 3.1, Figure 1 from AR4 is laughable. I’m away from my computer right now, but I seem to recall something similar in the second order draft of AR5.
Unfortunately, there are those–the press and alarmist websites–who fall head first for its flawed logic and then parrot the acceleration nonsense for the world to hear.
Regards
It’s the exact type of cherry-picking they always accuse skeptics of – such as the example from a recent post about SkS’s escalator graph.
Fine joust, Sir Christopher of Belchey. Calling the IPCC ‘criminals’ was the death thrust by your broadsword. Some may say this joust was petty hairsplitting, and that you ought to find something more constructive to do with your time, but here in the Village we’re proud to have you as our most verbose Champion.
A request, Christopher: In the future, please use the term Pacific Decadal or Multidecadal “Variability” instead of “Oscillation”. That will help to reduce confusion with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) dataset, which many people misinterpret or misunderstand.
Regards
Excellent. Clear enough to a dumb ol’ engineer like me, Viscount Monckton.
I particularly liked your illustrations of the slopes at various points on a sine wave. Those were clear enough for the Fine Arts, History, and Journalism majors and, well, anyone who made it out of the 4th grade to get the point. But I’m afraid the EyePeeSi`Si` will just tell you to go pound sand.
Village Idiot:
Your post at May 4, 2013 at 5:34 am demonstrates that your name is well chosen.
It says
The Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (whose name and title are clearly beyond your intellect to understand) has understated the case.
Viscount Monckton omits to mention the following damning facts:
1.
The graph was not put to peer review for the AR4.
It was added to the AR4 after all rounds of peer review were completed.
I was one of the reviewers who was shocked to find it in the published AR4.
2.
At the text approval stage the Chinese Delegation objected to the addition of the graph in the AR4.
They pointed out that it is statistically improper to compare different lengths of time. This was over-ruled and the offensive graph was included.
3.
Objections to the graph were immediate upon publication of the AR4.
I was one of the reviewers who objected.
4.
The graph can be used to show the opposite of what the AR4 claims it shows.
I also used the sine wave illustration in my objections posted in many places across the web. (Indeed, although I have not checked, I suspect I used it on WUWT.) But there is a more important point. The indication of “accelerating warming” is obtained by comparing increasing lengths of time from the right-hand end of the graph. But an indication of DEcelerating warming is obtained by comparing increasing lengths of time from near the left-hand end of the graph.
The graph is a deliberate fraud.
Richard
the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results
not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0968705882.txt
Given the IPCC’s manifestly erroneous, if not criminally fraudulent, reliance on this grotesquely misleading graphic, Lord Moncton’s definitive refutation of AGW Catastrophism in all its junk-science aspects may yet get Railroad Bill Pachauri’s attention. Though Tata Industries retains this peculiar soft-core creature for good reason, and Ban Ki-moon appreciates a confrere, neither Pachauri nor his abject propagandists have any shred of scientific credibility.
Well said Christopher Monckton! Thank you for your dedication toward the scientific method.
The growing disparity between the UN IPCC’s global temperature predictions over the past 15 years or so in favour of stable, albeit declining global temperatures, will no doubt stimulate the ‘Climate Deceivers’ to even greater levels of anguish and frenzied excitement to try and find fault and discredit your findings.
Unfortunately (for them) the final arbiter will be our planet where observations indicate we have entered a cooling cycle in keeping with natural solar influences. Sounds like an ‘Inconvenient Truth’ that the Climate Deceivers will find less than palatable to digest!
There is slightly shorter version of this issue, by a mathematician, (Paul Mathews, 3-4 years ago) it also highlights the controversy of how the reviewers did NOT see the ‘accelerating graph’
https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/howtheipccinventedanewcalculus
“The IPCC reports are subjected to careful review by scientists. So how did this blatant distortion of the temperature trends get through this rigorous review process? The answer to this question can now be found, because the previous drafts of AR4, and the reviewer comments, can now be seen on-line. (The IPCC was reluctant to release these comments, but was forced to do so after a number of freedom of information requests).
The answer is quite astonishing.
The misleading graph was not in either the first or the second draft of the report that were subject to review. It was inserted into the final draft, after all the reviewer comments. It is not clear who did this, but responsibility must lie with the lead authors of chapter 3, Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones. Here is the version of the graph that the reviewers saw in the second draft” – Paul M
————————————————————
It was discussed a while back (2012) at Bishop Hill
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/23/accelerating-global-warming.html
another extract:
“It is the same story with the misleading comment in the SPM mentioned above (“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years”). This statement was not in the original version reviewed by the scientists. It was inserted into the final draft that was only commented on by Governments.
The Chinese Government suggested deleting this, pointing out that ‘These two linear rates should not compare with each other because the time scales are not the same’. Well done to the Chinese Government for spotting that. Too bad their valid comment was ignored by the IPCC.” – Paul M
Pointing out the obvious will have little effect on vested political interests until the direction of vested interests change with the cooling global climate. OK that point is now almost upon us and before too long the vested political interests will start shouting: “We was scammed”.
This could be the last straw or a useful one that will be picked up at some politically opportune moment in the not too distant future.
Similarly, as Lord Monckton highlights above, Paul refers to this work:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/how-did-this-bogus-ipcc-graph-get-past-the-climate-science-experts.html
I have pointed out time and time again, to Skeptical Science, with respect to their misrepresentation of how sceptics think, their ‘Escalator’ graph, that a sceptic would draw ALL trend lines of similar lengths, not cherry pick a few, to ‘claim accelerating’
The Sks misrepresentation of how sceptics think:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/_core/foot/SkepticsvRealists_180.gif
My point is, that how many times do sceptics have to point out these blatant scientific falsehoods with respect to the IPCC. Just when will ‘science’ take notice, and take action, to preserve ‘science’s ‘ reputation
http://web.archive.org/web/20110310194729/http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/howtheipccinventedanewcalculus
http://web.archive.org/web/20101229182545/http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/how-did-this-bogus-ipcc-graph-get-past-the-climate-science-experts.html
‘Science’ has ignored this issue for years (see wayback above) so what chance again?
“overlaid by a ~60-year periodicity in global temperature”
Agree, we should filter out that 60-year periodicity
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:730
and then we clearly see no acc…- ehm..
IPCC gets even most basic things wrong.
Look at this illustration
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/04.18.jpg
and observe that the south of Iceland cold Arctic current ‘releases’ heat to the atmosphere.
Totally wrong; here is corrected version
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CB.htm
Of course, they ignored it.
Dr. Pachauri, the science chairman of the IPCC, admitted in Melbourne early in 2013 that there had been a 17-year “pause” in global warming
=============
Using the logic of the IPCC, the 17 years of no significant warming is clearly a sign that whatever we have done over the past 20 years has fixed the climate and it is no longer warming.
Probably the Chinese or the Indians have saved the world from Thermal Armageddon, through their rapid industrialization as the US and EU have shipped millions of jobs overseas, having found that they were oversupplied with work for people at $10/day, but rather short of work for people that needed $100+/day to pay the high cost of living in the US and EU.
Every resourceful the politicians in the US and EU have solved the economic problems of unemployment through the miracle of debt. Rather than creating work for the unemployed, they simply print money as though everyone still had a job. No doubt they will solve the problems of climate change using an equally creative and effective mechanism.
Since we can solve the unemployment problem by printing money to make up the shortfalls in revenues, why not apply the same logic to temperature? Rather than solve the temperature problem, why don’t we (similar to printing money) simply manufacture temperatures to suit our requirements?
I have just come to the end of a bit of research looking into the real GHE and what controls climate. The real GHE is <~9 K and is set by GHG thermal emission turning off net surface IR in those bands thereby reducing surface operational emissivity and increasing convection. You prove this coupling very simply by erecting a windbreak on a beach. Because convection is reduced, the sand temperature and your skin temperature increase to keep radiation plus convection equal to the solar SW input!
The rest of the surface temperature rise is from Lapse Rate and it operates by close coupling between lower and upper atmosphere processes which ensure SW energy IN = LW energy out, a powerful negative feedback control system using CO2 as its working gas.
There is no net CO2 ~15 µm IR emission from the surface. Therefore, by definition, there can be no CO2-AGW. This has to be the case because 450 million years ago we had ice ages whilst CO2 was 12 times present level. Also the Earth was able to retain liquid water at the Equator 4 billion years ago when we had 70% of present solar output. The separate temperature control system involves clouds.
What the IPCC sets out as recent temperature rise is primarily from variation of cloud cover with solar variation in the EUV plus its interaction with the 60 year ENSO. Your sinusoidal analogy is accurate but you have lots of sine waves interacting, a sort of Earthly biorhythm!
I have suggested to DECC that they plan to have inshore icebreakers by 2020 to keep the Northern ports open in Winter. So far, I have had no reply! PS did you know that rats are leaving the DECC's sinking ship: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/3/decc-in-chaos.html?currentPage=2#comments
lgl:
re your post at May 4, 2013 at 6:42 am
Please explain how you generated the spurious graph in your link.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Richard
ferd berple says:
May 4, 2013 at 6:52 am
“Since we can solve the unemployment problem by printing money to make up the shortfalls in revenues, why not apply the same logic to temperature? Rather than solve the temperature problem, why don’t we (similar to printing money) simply manufacture temperatures to suit our requirements?”
But that is what they do. By manufacturing a temperature record at GISS, they solve the political problem of uniting us into a fight against humanity itself, as prescribed by the Club Of Rome.
BTW, any news about Gavin? If he as good as his ex master Hansen in rewriting history?
I commend the good Viscount. His fine
And simple example, a sine,
Shows that “swings” that depend
On their start and their end
Do not make any valid trend line.
Climate Science is if nothing else consistent. They consistently demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with the most basic of mathematical fundamentals.
If the “trend” changes as you change the end points, then what you have is not a trend.
Every morning the temperature locally rises about 10C over a period of 6 hours. This works out to an alarming rate of 1.5 million C per century. Surely we must work to prevent mornings if we are to save the world from certain doom.
Ask yourself this simple question. Have you not, at some point in the past, dreaded the thought of what would happen the next morning? Haven’t you secretly wished that morning would never come? What you feared is better known as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Morning. Please give generously.
Hey Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones. You both are frauds. Why in the world would you stoop to inserting this piece of information without the benefit of review by the review team? You have condemned your names and scientific reputations to the scrap heap of history. Shame and scorn will follow you into your graves.
Thanks Christopher, Lord Monckton.
The IPCC has criminally mislead the governments of the world for many years now.
This is the new “Hockey Stick” to maul mankind and punish us for raping Gaia.
This is the inquisition all over again, this time from the Church of Global Warming.
The IPCC represents the governments they deceive, so the only way to break the vicious circle is to change the governments, while we still can.
Christopher Monckton is of course you are right.
He highlights a typical trick used by the AGW advocates to mistake a climatic oscillation for a acceleration trend. The same trick is commonly used to “predict” devastating sea level rise as I demonstrate in this paper of mine:
Scafetta, 2013. Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes. Climate Dynamics. in press.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1771-3
The paper can be downloaded from my web-site here:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/10.1007_s00382-013-1771-3.pdf
In this paper I propose a novel methodology that allows to quantify natural oscillations and separate them from a background acceleration in tide gauge records. One of the results is that the real sea level accelerations are quite small, far smaller than what other studies that ignore the natural oscillations of the climate system have claimed. Some of the major papers claiming catastrophic sea level rise for the 21 century (e.g. in New York City), which ignore the effects of the natural oscillations of the climate system such as the quasi 60-year oscillation, are strongly questioned.
Abstract:
Herein I propose a multi-scale dynamical analysis to facilitate the physical interpretation of tide gauge records. The technique uses graphical diagrams. It is applied to six secular-long tide gauge records representative of the world oceans: Sydney, Pacific coast of Australia; Fremantle, Indian Ocean coast of Australia; New York City, Atlantic coast of USA; Honolulu, US state of Hawaii; San Diego, US state of California; and Venice, Mediterranean Sea, Italy. For comparison, an equivalent analysis is applied to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index and to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index. Finally, a global reconstruction of sea level (Jevrejeva et al. in Geophys Res Lett 35:L08715, 2008) and a reconstruction of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index (Luterbacher et al. in Geophys Res Lett 26:2745–2748, 1999) are analyzed and compared: both sequences cover about three centuries from 1700 to 2000. The proposed methodology quickly highlights oscillations and teleconnections among the records at the decadal and multidecadal scales. At the secular time scales tide gauge records present relatively small (positive or negative) accelerations, as found in other studies (Houston and Dean in J Coast Res 27:409–417, 2011). On the contrary, from the decadal to the secular scales (up to 110-year intervals) the tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records. The multiscale dynamical evolutions of the rate and of the amplitude of the annual seasonal cycle of the chosen six tide gauge records are also studied.
I am keeping a comparison between the forecast made with my proposed astronomical based model of climate variation vs. the IPCC GCMs projection at my web-site where my proposed model outperforms until now the IPCC GCMs.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model
Thank you, Lord Monckton, for your relentless efforts to prevent the world from being thrown back into the dark ages. These IPCC-cultists need a total defunding and the exposure of their scientific fraud may be the key to their demise.
In the mean time, maybe you can also force them to show a graph with global temperatures on a linear scale and with CO2 concentrations on a logarithmic scale. That would give the MSM some food for thoughts about the alleged effects of CO2.
richardscourtney says: May 4, 2013 at 7:04 am
…..
In the webpage’s ‘Value’ column enter 1, then change to any higher number.
It is hard to take these highly technical concepts and put it into language us mere mortals can understand, but you have accomplished this. Good job Lord Monckton!
richardscourtney says on May 4, 2013 at 6:18 am
“The graph is a deliberate fraud”.
With the graph being a deliberate fraud and so widely used by so many who know it to be then they are fraudsters and AGW is conclusively the global fraud they have long mocked as being a foolish conspiracy theory.
“Deliberate” is a nail in the coffin of AGW. “Knowingly” circulating the false graph is another nail. Acknowledgement is another.
The fraudsters can handle many nails.
Correcting the graph would be an admission of the death of AGW..
Therefore they cannot and will not correct it unless they are ordered to do so by a court..
Lord Monckton’s observations are not new, as pointed out above. What is perhaps new is the set of actions specifically being taken in New Zealand that cause potential real consequences.
An interesting question is what set of ‘force multiplying’ actions can be taken more generally to provide negative consequenctandoor such behavior ( inserting blatantly unscientific charts post peer review) and incentives against future repetition? This is plainly necessary, since present incentives mostly run in directions reinforcing such disingenuous conduct. Gergis is arising zombie like in the PAGES2K paper despite selection bias. Kaufman has done it again with a contaminated 20th century varve. Marcott has not yet been retracted despite blatant redating that violates his own methodology statements. Lewandowsky just got a Royal Society stipend. And so on.
Surely country by country, case by case, there are points of real leverage to be applied by individuals and small groups beyond mere exposure of all this nonsense in cyberspace, to which exposure most of the perps seem quite immune. What is needed is more bite and less bark.
Monckton says
“Surely the correct conclusion is that – so far, at any rate – there is no discernible human influence on global temperature: merely a continuation of the recovery of global temperatures from the Little Ice Age (a recovery that began 300 years ago), overlaid by a ~60-year periodicity in global temperature that appears to exhibit some correlation (not necessarily causative) with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index.”
He is entirely right.The entire IPCC AWG meme is based on the gross stupidty and scientific incompetence of the British and American climate science establishment. CO2 is now approaching .0004 % of the atmosphere.The idea that this small factor is the main climate driver should have been treated as a joke when first promulgated.The natural CO2 levels are driven by the temperature.It is only by assuming the reverse and then illogically adding on the main greenhouse gas water vapour as a feedback to any CO2 increase that the data can be tortured into producing the 3 degree sensitivity to CO2 required by the IPCC policymakers on behalf of th power grabbing western governments and the ecoleft.
The recovery from the Little Ice Age can reasonably be correlated with a climb back to a warm peak in the solar millenial cycle sometime in 2003-6 .This just happens to coincide with a peak in the 60 year cycle at about the same time.For future temperature forecasts at centennial scales the level of CO2 can be conveniently ignored as being too small to calculate at the present state of our knowledge. I made a forecast of future temperature trends based on these perfectly reasonable assumptions of where we are in the solar cycles in my post “Global Cooling Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions” on my blog at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
which was reposted earlier on WUWT
here is a summary of the results.
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the Little Ice Age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
vukcevic:
Thanks very much for your post to me at May 4, 2013 at 8:21 am.
Yes, that does it by some smoothing function. Thankyou.
But it does not answer my question as to what was done. Or, to rephrase that,
What is the smoothing function?
Please note that I am grateful for your help, but it does not provide what I wanted; i.e. how was the 60-year cycle removed?
The system says the processing is “mean samples” whatever that means.
If the processing was merely by some smoothing then the apparent “acceleration” could be end effects of the smoothing, especially when most (all?) of the acceleration is near the start of the time series.
Richard
Some excellent commentary here – but fascinating to a mere lay-person such as myself. How on earth the IPCC continues to get away with such questionable ‘scientific’ methods in order to influence public policy around the world is baffling beyond words. Who do I complain to?
Phil Ford:
at May 4, 2013 at 9:03 am you ask
If you find out then please tell me.
I have yet to discover anywhere that takes note of complaints concerning the IPCC and its procedures.
Richard
“overlaid by a ~60-year periodicity in global temperature”
Agree, we should filter out that 60-year periodicity
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:730
and then we clearly see no acc…- ehm..
Well done! Now one can very clearly see that there really almost no warming that can be attributed to CO_2, as the slope of the resulting curve is essentially flat from 1950 flat, and does all of its “accelerating” back before changes in anthropogenic CO_2 levels could possibly be the cause. Monckton should surely have pointed this out with the support you so ably generated.
If anything, the curve you generated suggests that the Earth’s climate — or at least, HADCRUT’s thumbs-on-scale representation of the Earth’s climate — underwent a significant non-anthropogenic change around the time of the minimum in this curve (which was, not particularly coincidentally, very nearly the eleven thousand year minimum in the extended thermal record of the Holocene) from a cooling trend to a warming trend that continues today.
Now I would be tempted to say that this proves that there is no global warming due to CO_2, but of course this would be just as fallacious as the claim that there is. The fact of the matter is that we cannot predict or explain one single bit of this curve, with or without CO_2. We do not know why the Earth had a minimum temperature in the late 1800’s following an even deeper minimum in the 1600’s. We do not know why it then started to warm up. We do not know why the warming accelerated. We do not know what fraction of the current rate of warming — which is neutral to quite possibly cooling following the removed 60 year periodicity — is due to CO_2 and what fraction is due to a continuation of the natural cases that we cannot identify or whose effect we cannot predict or hindcast to explain the MWP, the LIA, the Dalton minimum, or the maxima and minima in global mean temperatures that weren’t as pronounced as these named excursions.
No matter how you slice it, attributing any fraction of the behavior of this curve to CO_2 concentration is a form of intellectual fraud unless and until one can predict and explain all of the curve from the time before CO_2 became a factor. Wouldn’t you agree?
rgb
richardscourtney
You will have to ask woodfortrees how they do the mean function but it would surprise me if it’s not a moving sum of in this case 730 samples (months) divided by 730.
If you don’t like it you can do a simple detrend
http://virakkraft.com/Hadcrut4-Nino34-detrended.png
and you get the same result. Around 0.04 C/dec the first ~60-yrs period and around 0.075 C/dec the last period. Still acceleration but of course nowhere near what the IPCC is claiming.
To Alec M, regards your post on May 4, 2013 at 7:00 am:
Please stop. We cannot defeat the unscientific nonsense perpetrated by the catastrophicists by producing and propagating our own flavors of idiocy.
I had once hoped the nonsense about gravity and lapse rates being responsible would be quickly stamped out by simple devestating rebuttals such as Willis Eschenbach’s Perpetuum Mobile piece from Jan 2012.
Maddeningly, some people will not admit a car without wheels cannot get them to the store until after it runs out of gas, then they’ll look to borrow a gallon as that’ll be just enough to get it to the gas station.
It’s generally true regardless that energy in = energy out when temperature is stable, not including other processes at the level of a rounding error, and the Sun gives us shortwave while the planet radiates the absorbed shortwave as longwave.
So that’s just basic physics which doesn’t need to be “ensured” by anything.
This part is such complete unintelligible nonsense, it’s not even right enough to be declarable as wrong.
Before you embarrass yourself further, please review the excellent Ira Glickstein (PhD!) series of WUWT articles, Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
Now then, if the greenhouse effect is 100% effective at ~15µ (micron, micrometer), absolutely completely saturated, then all of it emitted from the surface would be returned due to GHE, which would yield no net ~15µ emission from the surface. If any of it escaped into space, then there would be a net positive amount of emission from the surface.
However greenhouse gases like CO₂ and H₂O could return the energy of absorbed ~15µ radiation as ~7µ, ~10µ, or ~15µ radiation, with H₂O also absorbing ~7µ and returning those wavelengths.
Thus for there to be “no net CO2 ~15 µm IR emission from the surface” is… Well first you’d have to show the differences between “CO2 ~15 µm IR emission” and “H₂O ~15 µm IR emission” and some others too, and how the measuring accounted for that.
Then there’s a question of how high up they did the measuring. From far enough out in space, since ~10µ is the atmospheric window, it’s expected you won’t see much ~7µ and ~15µ emitted. With no net emission of ~15µ, well… You’re actually stating a level of perfection that’s physically impossible.
Stop trying to refute their misapplied and incorrect science with pseudo-science, as it makes us all look bad.
rgbatduke,
Thanks for another well thought out comment.
One thing that might be missing: a reference to Occam’s Razor [“One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.” ~William of Ockham, 1285-1349].
CO2 is not necessary to explain anything we observe. There is no measureable evidence showing that CO2 has any effect whatever on global temperatures. But there are plenty of empirical measurements showing that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. The Warmists have cause and effect reversed, so naturally their conclusion is wrong.
Per Occam’s Razor, CO2 should be eliminated as a controlling entity. Real world evidence simply does not support the conjecture that CO2 is the cause of global warming.
lgl:
Thankyou for your reply to my question at May 4, 2013 at 9:26 am.
OK. That is an honest answer: you don’t know how it was done and you say you don’t know.
I wish more AGW-believers were as honest. Thankyou.
For sake of argument, let us assume your supposition of the smoothing is right. Then some of the apparent “acceleration” is probably an artifact of the smoothing.
Whether or not that assumption is true, the graph presents the excellent point made by rgbatduke in his post at May 4, 2013 at 9:16 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/monckton-asks-ipcc-for-correction-to-ar4/#comment-1297101
However, I would not be willing to make that point unless and until I learned how the data was actually processed because there is a risk that a more appropriate processing would significantly alter the curve.
Richard
The notion that there is a “trend-line” is scientifically illegitimate, for each point along a trend-line states a claim regarding the mean global temperature in the underlying statistical population but the claim is untestable because the population does not exist.
This is Lord Monckton’s best work to date: clear, factual, easy to follow, cross-referenced and without excessive use of Latin!
rgbatduke
All good. It could be the Sun for instance
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:730
In fact I can ‘prove’ half of the 0.075 C/dec of real warming is the Sun 🙂
http://virakkraft.com/TSI-integral-Loehle-temp.png
but for the remaining 0.03 C/dec I don’t find any better explanation than man made.
Terry Oldberg:
re your post at May 4, 2013 at 9:39 am.
Please do not interrupt the thread with another of your interminable ‘discussions’ based on your assertion that there is some missing “population” which you cannot define.
There is a time series. Each datum in the time series is part of the total data set which forms the statistical population which can be calculated to have a trend with specified confidence. END OF.
Richard
*sigh*
New system, whitelisting in effect, most comments go right through without waiting for moderation.
Apparent result, “awaiting moderation” is the new spam filter, if a comment gets caught then it can wait for moderation as long as one in the old spam filter might have waited to be cleared.
Oh well, it is progress, of the good kind for once.
richardscourtney
Well, usually I don’t define myself as an AGW-believer. You will see from my last comment I’m at most 15% IPCC-believer, lgl/IPCC=0.03/0.2
Just as “Words are used to shape reality rather than report it,” we now how have graphs shaping ‘reality’ rather than reporting it. This is what happens when science embraces the tactics of social engineering.
Some points:
1) if CO2 has any appreciable effect and it is insignificant before 1950, then the slopes of the recent cooling periods should be greater than those of 1860-1880 and 1910-1940, not the same. This in itself is a good illustration of no acceleration and should limit the possible climate sensitivity of CO2 to a maximum of ~0.2C (I don’t buy that the physics demands more).
2) The marked divergence of CO2 levels and temperature are a fairly direct measure of the relative weights of whatever CO2 effects vs natural variability there are. The present hiatus in temperature rise will conclusively underscore CO2’s zero to minor effect if it cools for a significant period. Has anyone done the obvious – leave CO2 out of the models, give best estimates of other parameters and see what happens. The departure of the observed temp trace to outside the projected 95% confidence limits shows ignoring CO2 or giving it a minor role, 10-20% of the warming is at least closer to reality.
3) The “staircase” upward-adjusted local and global temperatures need an autopsy by independent scientists. We have seen the 1936 record temp deep-sixed to make 1998 a new record. Despite tilting the early temps lower and the latest temps higher (I’d like to see if the pre1998 curve was tilted using a thumb tack at the change over point – that would be very telling), we are still talking only +0.7C in a hundred years. Without this chicanery the hiatus may already be 20 years or more and the increase in temp only 0.4C..
From lgl on May 4, 2013 at 9:54 am:
Believing only 15% of “Cyanide is an excellent food seasoning” may still be harmful. Is that limited to cooking veal, or for spinach salads? In any case, I would accept no more than 0% of anything such a believer would offer me. Even less if they offer a glass of Kool-Aid, with ice cubes.
Monckton puts his finger on why the IPCC has relinquished credibility yet again.
But aren’t the old ones the best ones ? Why hasn’t this been corrected long ago ? It’s still being used to support one of the most commonly trotted out myths , that of acceleration of warming, to misinform the policy debate.
Many politicians are beginning to realise though, and the IPCC is just left to look silly for not correcting it.
lgl says:
“…but for the remaining 0.03 C/dec I don’t find any better explanation than man made.”
That is an excellent example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy: “Since I can’t think of any other explanation, then global warming must be due to CO2.”
lgl, there is a lot we do not understand about the climate. There are things we know that we don’t understand, and then there are unknown unknowns. For example, it wasn’t very long ago that ENSO was unknown.
I am a measurements kinda guy. If something cannot be quantified with empirical measurements, then it is nothing but a conjecture. It is almost [but not quite] non-science. FYI, there are no verifiable, empirical measurements of AGW. Give me measurements. Not assertions.
You will have to provide testable measurements if you want to convince skeptics that your CO2 conjecture is real. Scientists have been searching intensely for an ‘AGW fingerprint’ for decades, with no success. It would seem that the reasonable conclusion should be that there is no “there” there. AGW either may not exist, or it’s effect is too small to measure. Either way, “carbon” should be completely disregarded when making policy. It has proven to be a baseless scare.
Steve Oregon says on May 4, 2013 at 8:39 am
” With the graph being a deliberate fraud and so widely used by so many who know it to be then they are fraudsters and AGW is conclusively the global fraud “.
Is Monckton keeping a list of all those he’s written to over the years about their persistent use of this misrepresentation ?
When the climate of turning a blind eye to such behaviour changes, the inquisition will be much greater than any the BBC has been enduring lately.
Devastating.
Unfortunately, all the facts in the world shoved in their faces still won’t deter fanatics from piling lie upon lie.
I don’t believe the fanatics will back off until they are physically forced to. You can’t reason with unreasonable people.
I also would like to request a correction.
There is no “global temperature”, therefore any derivative of said non-existent thing (mean, mode, median, anomaly, etc) is an exercise in futility.
DougS says: “Hey Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones. You both are frauds. Why in the world would you stoop to inserting this piece of [mis]information without the benefit of review by the review team? You have condemned your names and scientific reputations to the scrap heap of history. Shame and scorn will follow you into your graves.”
Indeed, it’s a travesty.
Almost regardless of the science, some people within the IPCC took it upon themselves after final reviews had taken place to put a graph that was incorrect into the AR4 SPM and then use that to persuade policy makers to take ‘urgent action’ against the use of fossil fuels.
Many of us have suffered directly financially due to this. Paying extra taxes, losing jobs, paying extra to travel etc etc. Therefore, there are thousands if not millions of people who can demonstrate direct financial losses due to this fraud. The fact that the figures and graphs have been retained uncorrected despite high level advice that they were incorrect shows culpability. This is NOT an argument about the ‘science’ of AGW it is an argument about the misrepresentation of the research to policy makers resulting in policies directly harmful to large numbers of people.
Surely, this is grounds not for just a small legal action in New Zealand but for a class action lawsuit against those organizations and individuals who persist in promulgating falsehoods to the detriment of millions. I realize that the IPCC as a UN organization would immediately claim some kind of diplomatic immunity – but that in itself is an admission of guilt and they should be forced into that defense. However, the Team and for that matter the EPA are not in such a protected position especially if they used these fraudulent graphs and claims outside the auspices of the UN.
Is there not a lawyer that wishes to take this on?
richardscourtney:
To call on one’s opponent to withdraw is not a logically legitimate approach to winning a debate. To complain that one’s opponent has not defined a mathematical term is not a logically legitimate approach to winning. To win, one must refute one’s opponent’s argument. This, you have not accomplished.
Your “population” lacks an essential property of a population. This property is an ability to be sampled.
One cannot sample the temperatures along a trend-line because their existence lies in the past. For example, one cannot sample temperatures in February 1865 because their existence lies in the past. In the circumstance that the temperatures cannot be sampled, it is scientifically illegitimate to claim that the population mean varies linearly with the time. That the population mean varies linearly with the time, though, is a requirement for the existence of a trend-line. A trend-line, then, does not exist as a scientific concept.
I’ll bet it burns people at the IPCC to get notes like this. Why won’t Monckton go away, so we can play?
Terry Oldberg:
re your twaddle at May 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm.
You say
Every measurement result “lies in the past” as soon as it is obtained.
Data in a time series is no different to any other data in this respect.
Data from a data set can be sampled as sub-sets which can be compared to any other sub-set sampled from the data set.
Data in a time series is no different than data of any other data set in this respect.
The accuracy, precision and reliability need to be assessed for any datum.
Data of a time series is no different than any other data in this respect.
I refer you to my post to you at May 4, 2013 at 9:50 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/monckton-asks-ipcc-for-correction-to-ar4/#comment-1297125
And I repeat, don’t disrupt this thread with another of your interminable ‘discussions’ of a “sample population” which you cannot define. END OF.
Richard
richardscourtney:
As you state, every measurement result lies in the past. A consequence is for it to be impossible to test the hypothesis that sample means lying in the past vary linearly with respect to the time. This is a fact and it destroys your argument.
Turn about is fair play – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998.3/plot/uah/from:1998.3/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/plot/uah/from:2010/trend
Well, he’s right in saying that cherry-picking starting dates isn’t exactly kosher. It’s easy enough, though, to see whether there really has been an acceleration, isn’t it? Just take the derivative of the graph, or (more or less equivalently) chart the slopes between every adjacent data point. Might be good to make it a trend of the running decadal average, actually, so as to cancel out ENSO and schtuff of that nature. If there’s no acceleration in rise, the graph should be flat. If acceleration has been negative, there should be a negative slope, and if positive, we should get a positive slope. So, using HadCru’s global temperature records, we get… https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9drDXIilFv5elRGbFdiZThuc3M/edit?usp=sharing
Looky thar. Faster rise in recent years than in the past.
…On an unrelated note, Terry, I’m not sure that what you’re saying makes sense. That is, if we assume a priori that an objective reality exists. If we’re dabbling in solipsism, though, it’s perfectly valid, I guess.
Sam Yates:
I don’t follow you. Can you expand upon your theme?
I think a FOIA request is in order to find out who put the graph into AR4 after reviews had been done!
Sam Yates:
This subject must have touched a nerve with its attraction for trolls. At least you provide a name so I suppose you are not posting anonymously.
But your post at May 4, 2013 at 1:21 pm is pure trolling.
It attempts to divert the thread onto a ‘red herring’.
Your graph is worthy of being refuted (which makes it a clever ‘red herring’) but is not relevant to the subject.
This thread is about the IPCC avoiding its own procedures to replace a peer reviewed graph with another – n.b. not peer reviewed – graph which uses an improper statistical trick to provide an untrue indication. You have presented another graph which has no relevance of any kind to the subject of this thread.
My response to your post is to advise everybody; Don’t feed the troll.
Richard
The graph purports to show, but does not show, that the rate of global warming has been accelerating
Things have now changed. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2005/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/to:2004/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004/trend
The graphs above show different things for three data sets where there has been no warming for at least 16 years. WFT only allows us to draw straight lines between two points, however climate does not go in straight lines. Often, temperatures vary in a sinusoidal fashion which cannot be shown using WFT. However we can do the next best thing and show what is happening over the first half of the 16 years and what is happening over the last half. As shown, the first half shows a small rise and the last half shows a small decline. Note that neither the rise in the first half nor the drop in the last half is statistically significant. However the lines do suggest that we are now just continuing a 60 year sine wave that was started in 1880 according to the following graphic:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
The trend on the arithmetic mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies from January 2001 to April 2013 shows no acceleration in the rate of warming. Instead, for 12 years the trend has been statistically indistinguishable from zero:
The combined RSS and UAH almost gives a slope of 0 since December 1997. This is 15 years and 5 months going to April. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.9/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997.9/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend
UAH slope = 0.00549541 per year
RSS slope = -0.00459907 per year
The difference of these two numbers is 0.00089634. Since each data set contributes to half of any net slope, then if the two would be plotted together, the net slope would be 4.48 x 10^-4/year. So while it is not negative, it is extremely small and not significant. (The April values are not shown on WFT, but UAH went down in April from 0.183 to 0.103. While RSS is not out yet for April, I do not expect a large departure from UAH.)
Werner See my comment above. The declines since 2004 are likely the start of the combined downslopes of the solar 60 and 1000 year cycles.see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
“Global Cooling- Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions.”
What has happened over the last 2000 years and what will happen over the next decades and likely the next several hundred years has now become obvious.The mechanisms are still fairly obscure – but it is not necessary to fully understand the mechanisms to predict the future – one merely has to correctly identify the past quasi -cyclic patterns and project them forwards.
Richardscourtney, I am not sure why you consider Sam a troll and why you try to ‘police’ this thread by determining what is relevant or not. A) Sam says the ipcc depiction of an increasing trend may not be ‘kosher’ thus agreeing. B) He asks whether the conclusion drawn by the not kosher method is in fact true or not. Why is that not relevant? If the conclusion is right then the ipcc has only used a bad method to illustrate a correct conclusion. If false, they have used a bad method to show something that has not in fact happened. This distinction seems relevant to me.
Also I think a lot of readers could be interested if the temperature increase has been accelerating (up until the the year of the ipcc report as well as up until now). I agree with Sam that it should be easy enough. See if a quadratic trend fits better to the data than a linear trend, see if there is a significant quadratic trend in addition to the linear trend, or whatever else one might use (I do not have the data nor a statistics program available at the moment).
It’s not up to you to determine what’s relevant or not, that is not how the Internet works! See the post below yours from Werner, is he trolling as well?
Regards, R
The Viscount of Benchley called Mockton
Unveiled the IPCC’s error and defrocked em’
Their trend lines sublime
Had slopes that did climb
But depended on where you start em”
The trend-lines should be 37.5, 75, 112.5, and 150 years. That would be objective enough, would still show acceleration?, and its credibility determined by future trends. A correction indeed.
Hey now, no call to assume I’m intent on destroying all civil conversation just because I happen to disagree with you. You make a valid point; my post did sidestep the issue of the graph’s appearance in order to try to figure out if the basic statement, that warming has accelerated, was correct, which is (to me) more interesting.
But Fine, I’ll grant quite happily that if one gives oneself leeway to choose the start and endpoint of a trendline (although from appearances, the IPCC only gave themselves one degree of freedom), one can get all sorts of different conclusions. The information provided by the graph itself–as one draws nearer to the present, the trend in global temperature change grows steeper and steeper–is MATHEMATICALLY true, of course, just as the statement that there’s no statistically significant atmospheric warming over the last ten years or so is mathematically true, or that a given temperature series can be decomposed into a small number of summed sine waves is mathematically true. Those mathematical truths are, of course, utterly useless for future extrapolation unless one defends them with some plausible physical argument. If the IPCC were relying on this graph for claims of future warming…well, yeah. It’d be garbage.
So, I suppose, the acceptability of the modifications made to the graph (and note, none of the data points themselves were altered; the information itself is still all there) depends on whether you think the IPCC is trying to use it to prove a point, in which case it’s quite clearly inadequate, or to illustrate a point that is held by climatologists in general to be valid based on other data, in which case it’s unremarkable. I, as you might guess, cleave to the former position, and I’m happy to offer papers backing that up if you want ’em.
…Oh, and as a footnote to which you are under no obligation to respond if you feel it’s veering too far off the beaten path, I’m well aware that the graph I slapped together isn’t ironclad; one could quibble with my choice of temporal interval (in putting it together, I only looked at changes from year to year, average change over five years, and average change over ten years, and eventually settled on the ten year figure because it had the least spread of the data, which I took to mean that it more or less successfully smoothed out weather variations. All of the series had positive trendlines, by the by, they just got more significant as I smoothed out the weather variations), or quite rightly look askance at that not-too-impressive R^2 value of 0.13. All fair and valid criticisms, and I don’t personally know enough about statistics to be able to tackle the thing in the way it ought to be tackled–that is, with the rigor and care that would go into an actual research paper. I just wanted to show that there were more and higher positive changes in temperatures in recent years than in the past, and to do so in a way that avoided the issues attendant in starting this trendline here or that trendline there. And, well, the increases in temperature are more numerous recently, and they are higher. That’s all I was going for.
Terry: Eh…That’s probably for the best, really; I’m afraid I was being kind of rude. My apologies. I suppose I was struck by what (to me) seemed the nonsensicality of stating that the change in a mean value with time could not be determined. Cannot one, say, take a running mean over some interval (heck, like I did in my first post in this thread), and then watch how it alters as one shifts forward in years?
…Of course, the apparent nonsensicality of your idea probably means that I just don’t understand it, which is often enough the case when something seems illogical to me. Would you mind expanding on the idea?
Sam Yates:
I’ll try to discover a proof that you’ll find acceptable. I’ll need you speak up if anything sounds fishy.
A “trend-line” is a sequence of points. Each point has a pair of coordinates. One of these coordinates is the time. The other is the population mean. That a trend-line is straight implies that the population mean varies linearly with respect to the time. The issue under debate is whether the implied linearity can be tested. If it cannot be tested then the existence of a trend-line is scientifically untenable.
If keepers of weather stations around the world had measured the temperature and the time at infinitesimally separated intervals in time and kept the data, we would be in a position to test the implied linearity. However, this is not what they did. At some weather stations, for example, they measured the daily high and daily low and didn’t record the times at which these temperatures were attained because they didn’t know them.
To test the implied linearity, one would have to travel backward in time to make and record the missing measurements. However, to travel backward in time is impossible. Thus, the implied linearity is untestable and the existence of a trend-line is scientifically untenable.
Sam Yates said:
#So, I suppose, the acceptability of the modifications made to the graph (and note, none of the data points themselves were altered; the information itself is still all there) depends on whether you think the IPCC is trying to use it to prove a point, in which case it’s quite clearly inadequate, or to illustrate a point that is held by climatologists in general to be valid based on other data, in which case it’s unremarkable.#
Exactly my point above, imagine the difference in headlines!
GLOBAL WARMING ACCELERATING! IPCC USED FLAWED METHOD TO SHOW IT!
Vs
GLOBAL WARMING NOT ACCELERATING! IPCC’S METHODS WRONG!
(I am sure there are more talented people than me in making up headlines)
An excellent analysis, Lord Monckton. Not that you aren’t saying what others have said for years, but you put it very clearly and with the extra fillip given by celebrity. Science should not need celebrity on its side, but right now it needs every ally it can find. In a sane world not only would your analysis have been sufficient, it would not even have been needed. Regrettably, in our world today, it is not enough. We have reached the stage where only successful criminal prosecutions can bring us back to sanity.
“..explain why the IPCC considers it justifiable, on the basis of the relative slopes of multiple arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines, to draw the conclusion that the rate of global warming is accelerating and that we are to blame, when the observed data suggest no such acceleration.”
—
Al Gore gave his answer to this question in a recent speech in Beverly Hills: “This is for real. It is not made up. The scientists are not in a conspiracy to lie to us”
The IPCC’s answer will most likely be silence. The second most likely answer will be, “What difference at this point does it make?”
And don’t forget the other possible variants:
GLOBAL WARMING ACCELERATING! IPCC BASES STATEMENT ON WELL-SUPPORTED PHYSICAL MODELS, USES GRAPH TO SHOW ACCELERATION ALSO OCCURRED IN RECENT PAST!
GLOBAL WARMING NOT ACCELERATING! IPCC WRONG, USES LOAD OF HOOEY TO SUPPORT STATEMENT, ALSO MADE GRAPH SHOWING THAT ACCELERATION OCCURRED IN PAST!
and finally
WRITER VICIOUSLY ASSAULTED BY UPS WORKER RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING INK TO NEWSPAPER OFFICE! SUPERVISOR MAKES POINTED COMMENTS ABOUT CAPS-LOCK, HURTS WRITER’S FEELINGS!
…Yeowch. No doubt there are folks who could top you, Richard, when it comes to composing headlines, but I think you’ve still got me beat.
No Sam! Too long to be headlines! I’ll surrender to “hooey” though, would never have thought of that word myself!
Plain Richard and Sam Yates:
You are a good double act doing a good job of deflecting the thread from its subject.
I make a suggestion. Go over to SkS and misbehave there. Or have you come from there.
Incidentally, and to trample your sidetrack into the dust:
1.
There has been no global warming or cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all available data sets. acceleration does NOT consist of stasis.
2.
According to the IPCC AR4 which is the subject of this thread the stasis was not possible because of committed warming. The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
Richard
Richardscourtney, from your post at 6:18 I see you have a personal stake in the matter. But please stop telling other people what they may discuss or not.
“4 May 2013
IPCC Secretariat, Geneva
Gentlemen,
Request for correction of a serious inaccuracy in the contribution of Working Group 1 to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report
I am writing to report a serious inaccuracy in the contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report, 2007. … The error lies in a graph of the HadCRUt global temperature anomalies from 1850-2005, which appears twice in the Fourth Assessment Report. … The inaccurate version of the graph first appears in Chapter 3 …The defective graph has also been relied upon by agencies of government …
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley”
================================================================
Christopher, you knew that the graph was bogus on December 17, 2009 already, as you wrote on this blog (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-reports-on-pachauris-eye-opening-copenhagen-presentation/): “Next came the bogus graph, which is featured three times, large and in full color, in the IPCC’s 2007 climate assessment report. The graph is bogus not only because it relies on the made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia but also because it is overlain by four separate trend-lines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998.”
Why did you decide to wait with the letter to the IPCC until yesterday?
Hrm. I think what you mean by trend line and what I mean by trend line are two different things. To me, a trend line is the line whose slope and intercept are such that the distances between the scattered, nonlinear data points and the line itself are minimized–or, alternatively, given a collection of individual data points, the trend line is the slope and intercept you get after forming every possible line in the data set (that is, every possible permutation of point joined to point) and then averaging them. It’s the average slope of the data, not a representation of the data itself, and so it doesn’t really matter whether the points are linear or not, at least mathematically speaking. Heck, you could take a function that you know to be nonlinear (x^2, to keep it simple) and set a trend line to it over some finite interval. That line would, of course, be useless for extrapolating outside the interval, but within it a point placed on the line would be more likely to fit somewhere along the x^2 slope than if you had just randomly placed a point somewhere in the same space.
…Or am I just going over extremely simple things that you’re already very familiar with? I’m sorry; as you can see, I still don’t quite get your explanation.
Sam Yates:
We’re talking about the same line. My ideas relate to yours through the fact that temperatures along this line are population means, provided that the line was positioned by minimization of the sum of the squared errors and the errors are normally distributed. (The “error” of a data point is the difference between the temperature and the corresponding population mean.)
That this line is straight implies that the population mean varies linearly with the time but this implication is insusceptible to being tested. Consequently, this line does not have a scientific existence.
Richardscourtney: But…I addressed your point, I thought? Or at least, I tried to, and did my best not to do anything else you might regard as derailing it. My point, stated simply, was that mathematically there is an acceleration, but the question of whether that acceleration is representative of a real physical process or not was a question that the graph was not trying to answer (that was assumed a priori, which I fancy you might take issue with, but then that would also be veering a little bit from the topic of the day). Thus, I’d hold that the graph is not some sort of horrific scientific fraud, and that Monckton’s overreacting. That, surely, is on topic?
…In any case, just a few quick notes: No statistically significant atmospheric warming (the oceans have been getting plenty toasty), trying to make a point out of that trend is not dissimilar to the very objection that Monckton makes to the trend lines applied to (far longer) timeseries, and finally I couldn’t find a specific statement in the link you provided supporting your position. If, again, you wouldn’t regard it as deflecting the conversation too much, would you mind pointing it out to me?
If I just quickly update the IPCC graph with most recent HADCRUT3 data at the WFT using the same arbitrary 25, 50, 100 and 150 years trends the warming already clearly decelerates the last 25 years. So the IPCC graph shouldn’t be corrected, but it should be fully retracted because the main conclusions drawn from it are clearly outdated (even if we don’t consider very dubious nature of the arbitrary trends use). Similarly by other institutions which still use it. -Especially in the USA it could be considered being a federal fraud under USC 18 §1001 to further use the outdated and scientifically quite dubious graph, simmilarly in Europe.
So it is nice our dear Lord Monckton (I have had the opportunity to discuss with him various issues some years ago in Prague) asks the IPCC for a correction – but I’m afraid it is not enough, and I think he should ask full retraction and he might also contact other institutions which still use the graph with a C&D notice.
Plain Richard:
Contrary to your assertion in your post at May 4, 2013 at 4:08 pm, I do NOT “have a personal stake in the matter” but I do have some knowledge of it.
Do you have a personal stake? For example, are you obtaining remuneration for being a troll?
Richard
richardscourtney to Sam Yates : “I make a suggestion. Go over to SkS and misbehave there. Or have you come from there.”
Not SkS but RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/climate-change-commitment-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-176682
Sam Yates says:
2 Jun 2010 at 3:55 PM
“[…] …And, um, off-topic, but I just wanted to thank y’all for putting this much effort into communicating climate science to the world at large; it can’t be pleasant at times, particularly when you’ve got all manner of people accusing you of fraud, attempted global domination (seriously, now?), and other nastiness, but…thank you. If we and the world as we know it are going to survive, we need to understand that world and the laws by which it operates, and your work communicating those laws and how our understanding of them are arrived at is invaluable.“
Dr Norman Page says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Thank you!
Please keep this handy and post it again next month when I expect to have a post titled: Are We in a Pause or a Decline? (Now Includes at Least April data)
I will include what I had here and add: “Do you agree? What are your views on the question in the title? Do you think we are presently in a pause or in a decline or neither?”
Sam Yates says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:52 pm
“The information provided by the graph itself–as one draws nearer to the present, the trend in global temperature change grows steeper and steeper–is MATHEMATICALLY true, of course, ”
That is not so. “The trend” is not shown by the several trend lines because they show DIFFERENT trends; you mentioned a moving average yourself; each of the trend lines uses a differently sized moving average window, so to speak, so they are not comparable; They are different things. Therein lies the deception.
Why does CO2AGW science need to use deceptions when it is so irrefutable as the IPCC scientists, IPCC Greenpeace members and IPCC public officials publically proclaim. Rethorical question.
Speaking in filter terminology, what they show is how the output of a filter changes as its cutoff frequency is changed while filtering a signal. Who does that?
DirkH: That’s why I was careful to specify that they were mathematically true, in that each accurately represents the trend of the data points it contains. I didn’t intend to imply anything about whether they were intercomparable.
Mike Jonas: Wow, I’m impressed! Yes, I confess I do indeed hale from that dark and twisted land. I also, as long as we’re confessing our sins, I frequent Skeptical Science, The Science of Doom (it’s a little obscure, but well worth a visit; the feller takes an extremely empirical, mathematical approach to deriving and explaining the most fundamental aspects of the ways in which heat transfer operates within a system like the Earth), Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice Blog, and a whole bevy of other sites of which, I am sure, the majority of folks here would heartily disapprove.
But what of that? Doesn’t mean I can’t converse intelligently and respectfully with y’all, does it? Or if you think it does, give me a chance, at least. I haven’t gone on a wild stabbing spree or started comparing posters on here to various species of peculiarly unattractive shellfish. What do you say? Innocent until proven guilty?
Sam Yates says:
May 4, 2013 at 4:53 pm
“The Science of Doom (it’s a little obscure, but well worth a visit; the feller takes an extremely empirical, mathematical approach to deriving and explaining the most fundamental aspects of the ways in which heat transfer operates within a system like the Earth),”
SoD is a lawyer who played a little with MODTRAN for all I know. So if you say that MODTRAN is good for anything but designing infrared seeking weapons than that would be an added bonus of MODTRAN. Does it even allow to simulate an atmosphere in which water vapor and CO2 compete for IR photons?
BTW, have you ever contemplated by which means the atmosphere would radiate IR to space were it not for the alleged greenhouse gases CO2 and H2O.
As you are scientifically minded maybe you are interested in this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
Richardscourtney, are you kidding?
“I was one of the reviewers who objected.”
You said that!
I explained why there could be relevance to the question of accelerated warming occurring or not. You may not agree this being relevant to the thread, but it is not you who decides this. So go troll someone else!
He tends to deal with the matter at it’s most simplest, in my experience, DirkH. Y’know, going over how the atmosphere maintains its heat balance in very simple thermodynamic terms, covering the way in which it’s possible for a cooler object (like a blanket) to increase the temperature of a warmer object (like a human’s chilly toes), etc. Things like that. I’m not exactly familiar with MODTRAN, though, so whether that’s the ideal tool for what he does, I don’t know. The simpler equations and arguments check out, that at least I can vouch for. Thankee for the link, by the by; it’s mostmuch interesting. I think there’s a major flaw in the feller’s argument, though. He states:
“CO2* + N2 ↔ CO2 + N2⁺ (3)
Where the use of the double arrow ↔ instad of the simple arrow → is telling us that this process goes in both directions . Now the most important question is “What are the rates of the → and the ← processes ?”
The LTE conditions with the energy equipartition law give immediately the answer : “These rates are exactly equal .” This means that for every collision where a vibrationally excited CO2* transfers energy to N2 , there is a collision where N2⁺ transfers the same energy to CO2 and excites it vibrationally . There is no net energy transfer from CO2 to N2 through the vibration-translation interaction .
As we have seen that CO2 cannot transfer energy to N2 through the translation-translation process either , there is no net energy transfer (e.g “heating”) from CO2 to N2 what proves our statement .”
This would be true if there were an equal concentration of CO2 and N2 in the atmosphere, but there isn’t. While an excited CO2 molecule is very likely to collide with an O2 or N2 molecule, an excited N2 (or O2) molecule is extremely UNLIKELY to collide with a molecule of CO2. Therefore the rates of the forward and reverse processes are not identical. Because only greenhouse gases are capable of absorbing or emitting IR radiation, in IR-rich regions (near the Earth’s surface) they will always be slightly out of equilibrium with the non-IR active molecules around them, having just a tad more energy, while in IR-poor regions (the upper troposphere) they will be out of equilibrium in the opposite direction, being just a bit cooler. As a consequence, in the lower atmosphere there will be a net transfer of energy from IR active molecules to non-IR active molecules, while in the upper atmosphere the opposite effect occurs, and the IR active molecules (which can lose energy to space) tend to leach energy away from the non-IR active molecules (which are better at holding on to their energy).
…But now I really AM getting off-topic, and as I’d prefer not to risk getting the boot, and have nothing else that’s particularly relevant to add, I believe I’ll clam up for a bit, at least until something a bit more related to the topic of discussion comes bubbling merrily along. I don’t know whether Richardscourtney’s stern and disapproving attitude towards off-topicness is representative of how the mods about here feel, but best to play it safe, I think.
You misinterpret Kirchhoff’s Law, Sam. It is not dependant on the partial pressures. Thermalization and dethermalization must occur to equal amounts in LTE.
If the scale of the chart was in single degrees, the 300 years of temperature history would appear as a straight line. That’s how they’re fooling people, by constructing charts with a tall y-size in tiny increments of degrees that are, at best, pointless arguing about. It’s a visual trick.
Compress that chart vertically and you’d see nothing to worry about.
Plain Richard says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:31 pm
“Also I think a lot of readers could be interested if the temperature increase has been accelerating (up until the the year of the ipcc report as well as up until now). I agree with Sam that it should be easy enough. See if a quadratic trend fits better to the data than a linear trend, see if there is a significant quadratic trend in addition to the linear trend, or whatever else one might use (I do not have the data nor a statistics program available at the moment).”
Let’s take that serious for a moment. Now the Keeling curve seems to go up pretty linearly since the 60ies, maybe a very slight exponential term in there. We know that the CO2 forcing increases only logarithmically though, due to diminishing returns (pressure broadening gets weaker as the absorption spectrum gets more saturated).
When you try to fit the “accelerating trendlines” or your quadratic function to the temperature, how does that rhyme with the known logarithmic strengthening of the CO2 forcing? Answer, it doesn’t. Now, a trend is a model, and a model without a physical basis is numerology. Let’s look again at the propaganda graphic from the IPCC. They postulate something with it; that the temperature acellerates ever faster – draw the NEXT line and the line after that; they get increasingly vertical, right?
CO2 does not explain a physical mechanism for that. So which mechanism remains that could be used as the scapegoat? well, the postulated and never observed positive water vapor feedback; that’s the ticket! The only game in town!
BUT, as the acceleration is already in full progression, shouldn’t we have already observed a measurable increase in water vapor content? We haven’t. The only candidate that the IPCC offers that could explain the acceleration is AWOL (and of course, temperates over the last 15 years have stagnated, probably because there is no increased water vapor; wouldn’t that fit much better as an explanation?)
So, with no remaining candidate that could explain an acceleration that hasn’t happened, you can do all the curve fitting you want and it’s nothing more than numerology.
“I understand that the graph as submitted to the IPCC Secretariat in the scientists’ final draft of the Fourth Assessment Report was substantially as it appears below (though axial notations are mine): http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image002_thumb3.jpg?w=750&h=522
The above graph appears correct. It should be restored in place of the seriously inaccurate version that was substituted for it in at least two places in the Fourth Assessment Report. […]
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley”
===============================================================
Christopher, in your first post on this matter (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-reports-on-pachauris-eye-opening-copenhagen-presentation/) you characterized the above mentioned graph as relying on made up data (in addition to the wrong trend lines): “The graph is bogus not only because it relies on the made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia but also because it is overlain by four separate trend-lines, …”. In this post, however, you did not mention the made up data, but instead referred to the same temperature graph as correct.
Could you please be so kind and explain this contradiction?
DirkH: Fair enough, but if you’ve got a tiny subset of the particles absorbing photons and throwing the Boltzmann distribution out of kilter, you AREN’T at local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the system will try to rectify that by redistributing the energy from the few “hot” molecules throughout the gas. LTE isn’t a guarantee, you know. It’s just a statement about the distribution of energies, and it can quite easily be broken given the right set of circumstances.
Olaf: Well, technically you could measure the temperature in units of inebriated quolls, if you wanted to; as long as you’re consistent, and such and such degrees always corresponds to such and such quantity of Joules stored in the Earth’s climate system, anything goes. A rise in three degrees Celsius, globally speaking, isn’t unnerving because there’s anything particularly menacing about the number three; it’s not such a nice thing because the last time global temperatures averaged out to that, the world was a very different place. If I recall correctly, the global temperature difference between an interglacial and glacial is on the order of 3 degrees (which took me a long time to realize, to be honest; most of the charts of the glacial cycles give the temperatures in terms of the local temperatures, and of course thanks to polar amplification the temperature swings there are much greater than they are for the whole planet), although I could be wrong about that.
rgbatduke @ 9.16am raises an interesting point; here is the graph with of temperature with the 60 year periodicity overlay removed:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:730
Here is the temperature/CO2 comparison with the 60 year periodicity removed:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:730/offset:300/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12
And here is the temperature/CO2 comparison with the overlay included:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1959/mean:12/offset:300
Make of that what you will.
I was really enjoying the discussion on this thread. Particularly the input from richardscourtney and other familiar names. It was good because in WAS on topic and relevant and thoughtful. Then the accused trolls got into the act and as a result nothing more of interest occurred. As a newcomer to this medium, I now understand what trolls are about.
Werner
Just check the link I gave in the 2.31 post. Clearly I think we are on the downslope of the 60 and 1000 year solar cycles starting about 2003-4. The best metric for global temperature trends are the SSTs as I’ve pointed out on earlier posts eg “Global Cooling Climate and Weather Forecasting ”
Check also “30 year climate forecast – 2 year update ” on my site to see how close I came to forecasting the recent weather in the USA.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Sam Yates says:
May 4, 2013 at 6:33 pm
“DirkH: Fair enough, but if you’ve got a tiny subset of the particles absorbing photons and throwing the Boltzmann distribution out of kilter, you AREN’T at local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the system will try to rectify that by redistributing the energy from the few “hot” molecules throughout the gas. LTE isn’t a guarantee, you know.”
So you are saying Kirchhoff’s Law does not hold, as any absorbed photon would terminate the LTE condition.
I rather stick with Kirchhoff here. (The probability of a collision of CO2 with N2 is of course identical to the probability of a collision of N2 with CO2.)
BTW, what you’re proposing is what, that the 10 micron IR is absorbed by CO2, thermalized and not re-emitted? I think not even the IPCC would dare to postulate that, foolish editorials by Dessler (*), repeating the term “heat-trapping gases” over and over again, notwithstanding)
(*) http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/On-global-warming-the-science-is-solid-1623018.php
It’s based on WWF “science”, like the glaciers in Asia?
In light of the actual global climate change the last 15 years what planet is IPCC talking about?
Terry: …I’m very sorry, I’m still not following. Are you objecting to the fact that trying a straight line fit to a nonlinear function ceases to be useful away from the range over which it was fit?
P.O.F: I, uh, didn’t mean to troll, if that makes it any better. I was just trying to contribute to the discussion, which apparently I am rather bad at. If I might ask, though, what was particularly trollish? That’s not asked defensively, I just really don’t understand how I was trolling. Was it just that I came into the discussion with a completely different set of priors than y’all have? I guess I can see how that would be disruptive; it’d be sort of like, say, a passel of flautists discussing their craft when suddenly some wild-eyed individual from outside comes in, lightly brushes away all their discussion of breath control and the proper placement of the fingers, and starts an impassioned argument for using the flute as a percussion instrument.
Which is…unfortunate. Hm. I didn’t realize I was being so obnoxious.
Sam Yates:
That’s not the problem. The problem is that an assumption of linearity is being made that is not testable. By the way, you have not come across to me as a troll.
Interesting question Greg House @May 4, 2013 at 4:09 pm , yes it was wrong then, and for mine it’s completely right for Christopher Monckton to point out again how wrong that bias insertion was, in terms of damage to the reputation of the IPCC, and of no credit to those that allowed their personal bias to overide the integrity of science.
The IPCC appears to be on the brink of a similar catastrophic integrity error, due to the anxiety and bias of those pushing an agenda instead of the scientific method, by allowing non peer reviewed contraversial data, or at the least highly criticized assumptions, to be similarly inserted to further another political agenda, rather than secure the integrity of IPCC science. Short term headlines for long term shame.
The whole world is looking this time, and scientists who know better are prepared to speak out against the political agenda, and in defence of the scientific method. The world has moved on since 2009 and C02 is not the excuse anymore.
Terry Oldberg May 4, 2013 3:58 pm
Now I will tell you one. Did you know that it is impossible to get anywhere because we are always crossing an infinite number of halfway points? First we travel half the distance then half the remaining distance and then half the remaining distance ad infinitum? Your argument just needed proper context. Your argument is Greek to me.
Eugene WR Gallun
Eugene WR Gallun:
I’d be happy to amplify my remarks if you’ll give me a clue to your perplexity. A recitation of your background in mathematical statistics would help.
Dr Norman Page says:
May 4, 2013 at 6:51 pm
Check also “30 year climate forecast – 2 year update ” on my site to see how close I came to forecasting the recent weather in the USA.
You were right on! Now, you could bold a few more things such as In California the PDO will mean less rainfall with more forest fires in the south. and Northern Hemisphere growing seasons will be shorter with occasional early and late frosts
If that chart were drawn to the end of 2012, instead of 2005, the 25-year period (yellow line) starting in 1988 would have a lesser slope than the 50-year period starting in 1963. Some WUWTer ought to construct such a chart, as a comeuppance to those alarmists who have cited it.
If we get another seven flat years, we might get a 1997-2019 chart with a lesser slope than the 100-year chart. The we could say, “The warm is turning!”
DirkH: Just a short answer, as the natives appear to be getting restless and it’s probably best if I make my retreat. No, I have no problems whatsoever with Kirchoff’s law; emissivity is equal to absorptivity, most definitely. That doesn’t mean that every atom that absorbs a photon has to emit a photon again (if that were the case, we’d be blind and photosynthesis would be impossible); the energy can be transferred into another form. The odds of collision between a CO2 molecule and a nitrogen molecule, I think I may have phrased poorly. Any molecule in the gas will have a ~21% of colliding with a oxygen molecule, a ~78% of hitting a nitrogen, and ~1% of hitting anything else. An N2 molecule, then, is most likely to collide with another N2 molecule, because it’s got the greatest partial pressure. A CO2 molecule is ALSO most likely to collide with an N2 molecule, for the same reason. You will have, overall, the same number of N2-CO2 and CO2-N2 collisions–but given the vast sea of N2 and the minute quantity of CO2, you won’t have the same number of CO2*–>N2 and N2*–>CO2 collisions. Instead, an N2* is far more likely to hit another N2 molecule and transfer energy to it than to hit a CO2 molecule and return the energy to a form that can be emitted as radiation.
…”Short.” Heh. ‘Night, all. I appear to be somewhat incapable of restraining myself.
KenB says (May 4, 2013 at 7:47 pm): “Interesting question Greg House @May 4, 2013 at 4:09 pm , yes it was wrong then, and for mine it’s completely right for Christopher Monckton to point out again how wrong that bias insertion was, …”
=========================================================
This was not my point. My point is why he waited for more than 3 years. The thing is not new to him, he has already made the same point in 2009. He could have sent many letters on this matter since then, but he did not.
And he does not say the data was made up any more, this is interesting, too.
Sam Yates & Plain Richard
Why do you believe the things SkS and Real Climate have to say? Because what they say is never refuted? Why is it never refuted? Because anyone who does attempt to refute it with comprehensible argument is banned from the sites and their comments “disappeared”. They let the occasional crazy post — as a convenient “straw man” they can knock down — but serious refutations of the pseudo-science on those sites is not allowed.
Didn’t you know that?
And you are worried about being banned here? What a laugh! About the only thing that can get you banned here is endlessly referencing to Nazis — which Anthony Watts seems to have a bug about.
SkS and Real climate are held in low esteem here because quite a few people here have had their posts “disappeared” and been banned or what is even worse — had their comments altered by the moderators to say something which they never said!
Those sites believe in presenting “consensus”. Dissenters are not welcome.
The people who post articles here are highly intelligent people. The people who comment on this site rang from the truly brilliant to people like myself who are dog dumb. So the comments on your comments are going to vary quite a bit
Both of you seems to be people who are filled up with a lot of misinformation that you uncritically spout. Stick around and maybe you will learn something.
Eugene WR Gallun
@ d b: Billions of $ have been spent in thousands of research projects world wide to “prove” CO2 caused global warming. The money has been wasted, the research has failed in spite of thefact the person who discovered this improbable result would become world famous. In view of the obvious fact the global warmists lie at every turn, if they even had any remotely plausible research they would trumpet from the rooftops. They don’t and they don’t. QED. They have not a leg to stand on.
Greg House says:
” My point is why he waited for more than 3 years. The thing is not new to him, he has already made the same point in 2009. ”
This is nonsense. The point has been made frequently before and throughout that period. Nobody has waited.
Of course the fact that the IPCC will issue an update in the near future, makes this an obvious time to, once more, suggest corrections. If anybody is listening.
Terry Oldberg
You were doing pure bullshit and nothing else.
Eugene WR Gallun
Greg House, I realise you would ignore the point in my post, that the IPCC is poised to make the similar decision on what to include and what not to include. Perhaps you might like to look at the PAGES2K paper and others mentioned at http://climateaudit.org/ even the Gergis regurgitation hovering in the background. If lead authors push to include information according to their wishes over expert reviewers is your point of any value at all, My point still stands that this is quite appropriate timing to seriously remind the IPCC of what is at stake, and that many scientists are watching to see if the IPCC is anything other than a political cabal pushing its own agenda, and therefore subject to political aims rather than pure science.
Perhaps you might like to comment on those points, or do you support the PAGES2K use of contaminated data, and the Gergis mistakes.?
Roger Knights says:
May 4, 2013 at 7:59 pm
If that chart were drawn to the end of 2012, instead of 2005, the 25-year period (yellow line) starting in 1988 would have a lesser slope than the 50-year period starting in 1963. Some WUWTer ought to construct such a chart, as a comeuppance to those alarmists who have cited it.
There is very little difference. However there may be more difference if Hadcrut3 were updated past November 2012. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:600/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:600/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:300/trend
I might point out that the Noble prize originated from the person who made a large part of his money from the discovery of modern explosives (TNT from memory); a certain Mr Noble.
Rarely has there been such an invention which has caused as much industrial benefit, yet so much pain and suffering; and one might also note a certain irony with regards to the awarding of the peace prize to the IPCC, for its work on ‘climate change’.
wbrozek says:
May 4, 2013 at 4:35 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
The ‘global’ nomenclature is a political ruse to allow the argument that we are ALL in it together and we must ALL act if we are to prevent ‘global’ disaster. However, in reality, it is all a matter of regional or local variations, ie., some areas of the globe are warming, some are in stasis and some are cooling. Logic would suggest that we should be most concerned as to what is happening to the areas in which mankind predominantly inhabits. After all the only ‘global’ consequence is sea level rise, which if happening appears to be happening at a very slow and not accellerating rate such that adapation to sea level rise is the best solution for any country that may be adversely affected by sea level rise (not all countries will be, or at any rate only in certain regional stretches of their coast line).
As far as the UK is concerned, CET suggests that there has been about 0.5degC coooling since 2000. More significantly for the winter months, the fall in temperature is about 1.5degC since 2000. As far as the UK is concerned, it is this fact that should be of utmost relevance to the UK government and what policies it might need to have in place because of a cooling climate.
I suspect that CET data is typical of a significant part of Northern Europe but no doubt each major country will (or should) have regard to its own data set for their country.
As far as the US is concerned, it should have regard to its own data set. It is this that will impact upon food production and energy usage etc.
Please consider whether in your forthcoming post you can additionally look at the position from a regional basis, at any rate on continental scale or preferrably in even smaller regional areas.
In passing, I point out that if CO2 is a well mixed gas, it cannot in itself explain these regional variations.
Plain Richard:
I note that your post at May 4, 2013 at 5:28 pm repeated a silly point but
IGNORED MY QUESTION.
I repeat
Are you obtaining remuneration for you being an anonymous troll.
Richard
kadaka 9.28 am.
Sorry, but I have carefully looked at the whole sorry saga of Climate Alchemy from my background as a Metallurgical Engineer, a lot of the time modelling and measuring GHG-related heat treatment processes, and my PhD is in Applied Physics.
The fact is, basic radiative equilibrium physics requires that the local rate of heat generation is the negative of the gradient of radiation flux density, so idiotic ideas like ‘back radiation’ go out of the window. It’s because at an optical heterogeneity the incoherent wave front from the atmosphere to the surface at the same or higher temperature is on average annihilated at the interface, and from a quirk of physics the black body main GHG thermal bands switch off that emission from the surface.
This is why there can be no CO2-AGW from that cause: there can be no rebuttal of this basic physics which us engineers use every day to solve real problems.
As for the other possibility, the CO2 ‘OLR bite’, it can only work if there is no countervailing cooling process putting extra energy to space as the CO2 increases. There is such a process and my calculations are within 5% with no frigging the books by false data as Climate Alchemy has to do.
So, I will not accept the majority view because that view is based on many physics’ mistakes, I count 13 some of which Climate Alchemy doesn’t realise are there, it’s embarrassing. Sagan made a big one. Houghton 3 more. Then we had Trenberth and the meteorologists with phony ‘back radiation’ and so the fraud developed, layer upon layer of correction with at the end of 2011, Hansen claiming we can’t see AGW because it’s exactly hidden by aerosols causing clouds to reflect more solar energy.
The reality is that the real AGW has been from the low level clouds letting more energy in, and the process has now saturated. The proof that CO2 has no effect is the Faint sun Paradox and the period 450 million years ago when 12 times present CO2 coexisted with ice ages.
So, please accept that most of the Climate Alchemy literature is easily proved to be wrong. The clear sky atmospheric greenhouse factor is the product of incorrect boundary conditions. There can be no direct thermalisation of absorbed IR energy >LTE; basic statistical thermodynamics. It’s time to start the modelling from scratch with competent heat generation and heat transfer physics.
AlecM:
Currently available climate models convey no information to policy makers on CO2 emissions about the outcomes from their policy decisions. Were we to start over from scratch, it would be crucial for this shortcoming to be corrected for the models would otherwise be useless.
However there are practical limitations on our ability to accomplish this goal. Experience in building long range weather forecasting models suggests the need for upward of 150 observed events in building and validating a model. The standard in climatology is for an event to last 30 years but the global temperature record from 1850 contains only between 5 and 6 such events.
AlecM: I’m afraid I don’t quite understand some of your arguments. Would you mind elaborating on your statement “It’s because at an optical heterogeneity the incoherent wave front from the atmosphere to the surface at the same or higher temperature is on average annihilated at the interface, and from a quirk of physics the black body main GHG thermal bands switch off that emission from the surface?” What is this quirk, exactly?
If you don’t mind, I’d also greatly appreciate a bit more detail on the countervailing cooling process that you claim counters the increase in CO2.
Sam Yates:
In your post at May 5, 2013 at 8:26 am you ask AlecM:
There does not need to be one because any warming from any possible “increase in CO2” is so small as to be indiscernible.
Your words quoted by Mike Jonas demonstrate that you are not interested in the science of this issue. I provide a link which jumps to his post which quotes your words in case you have forgotten
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/monckton-asks-ipcc-for-correction-to-ar4/#comment-1297380
However, there may be people who have not been deterred by the trolls so are still here and want the explanation so I will post it again here.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity obtained by Idso, by Lindzen&Choi, etc..
In other words, the man-made global warming from man’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) would be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature so it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming.
Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Similarly, the global warming from man’s GHG emissions would be too small to be detected. Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
I hold this view because I am an empiricist so I accept whatever is indicated by data obtained from observation of the real world.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects.
Richard
richardscourtney:
As I’ve pointed out in many previous threads and in a peer reviewed articl, the climate sensitivity (aka equilibrium climate sensitivity) is a scientifically illegitimate concept. Why not put this particular issue to rest?
– – – – – – – –
Terry Oldberg,
Your comments over time in various threads have consistently provided me with thoughtful moments. Usually wrt the philosophy of science. Thanks.
Regarding your above comment, do you think that time series data is innately different than other types of data? That is, can a statistician look at a unidentified anonymous dataset (without labeled units of measurement) and tell whether it is a time series data set or not?
This question is one I am doing in preparation work in advance of the possibility of me attending the conference ‘First International Workshop on Econometric Applications in Climatology’ at the University of Guelph in early June which is co-sponsored by Ross McKitrick. I would appreciate your thoughts.
John
John Whitman:
Thanks for the kind words!
To respond to your question, both variables have units of measure. Thus, both of them are quantitative. Time is quantitative. Under this circumstance, I don’t know of a test by which one could determine through inspection of the data whether one of the two variables is time.
farmerbraun says (May 4, 2013 at 9:06 pm): “Greg House says:
” My point is why he waited for more than 3 years. The thing is not new to him, he has already made the same point in 2009. ”
This is nonsense. The point has been made frequently before and throughout that period. Nobody has waited.”
==========================================================
About who waited or not here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/monckton-asks-ipcc-for-correction-to-ar4/#comment-1297360
richard verney says:
May 5, 2013 at 1:57 am
Please consider whether in your forthcoming post you can additionally look at the position from a regional basis, at any rate on continental scale or preferably in even smaller regional areas.
I agree with everything you have said. I also agree that what you mentioned above is a very important topic. However my post is already basically done. All of my four posts so far basically give updates on 6 data sets with respect to rank, no warming and no significant warming. See my latest post at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/are-climate-models-realistic-now-includes-at-least-february-data/
The only additions for the next post, after the introduction, will be that I will give the March and April data, (and possibly May for the satellite data since they come out so fast.)
At the moment, I am very happy with my niche here at WUWT and I am not looking for a new one.
The trolls bombing this thread have lost more than skin in their CO2 controlled climitism craze.
Deceitful diversion and other tactics will no longer work. Your trashing of learning by observation is over.
The UN IPCC has thought it is mightier than all.
Monckton`s content in this post is just a part of what the public will know before too long.
The course of nature is underminding CACW. We will continue to observe natures trends and events in the future. CO2 is not a pollutant. We have much more to learn and those who have hindered us are being set aside.
Terry Oldberg:
At May 5, 2013 at 1:24 pm you ask me
richardscourtney:
To label me as a “nuisance” is an example of an ad hominem argument. As everyone knows that an ad hominem argument is logically illegitimate, when a debater stoops to making one this is a sign that he or she is cornered but lacks the decency to capitulate. Why not raise your standing in the community by capitulating now?
OOps formatting again! Sorry,
Quotation should have ended after ” rest”
Richard
Terry Oldberg:
In answer to your question to me I provided a clear exposition of your nonsense.
As part of that answer, I wrote
You have replied to my answer to your question saying in total
Anybody who reads what I wrote can see I did NOT call you a nuisance but stated – with example – that your behaviour is a nuisance, and I did NOT use an ad hom..
Obviously, you do not have any excuse for the points I made in answer to your question, and you have tried to use bluster as a ladder to get you out of the hole you dug.
Why not stop telling lies and stop trolling WUWT threads with your twaddle?
Richard
richardscourney:
Witnesses to the debate over the existence or non-existence of the equilibrium climate sensitivity may find it interesting that farmerbraun understands the equilibrium climate sensitivity to be non-existent and explains his reasoning. His reasoning is similar to mine. You, on the other hand, understand the equilibrium climate sensitivity to be existent but are incapable of explaining your reasoning.
By the way, by labelling me a “troll” you’ve lowered your stature once again by issuing another ad hominem argument. Are you aware of the law on this type of behavior?
Just run that equilibrium past a peasant would one of you?
A simple farmer wonders when is the climate at equilibrium ; (briefly) at the height of an Ice Age? ; at a certain (mid?) point in an inter-glacial? ; ever?
Surely the concept of an” equilibrium climate sensitivity” depends upon the existence of an equilibrium? Or one or more possible equilibriums given the scale of geological time?
Surely the sensitivity must also vary at different times ; otherwise we would not have ice-ages and interglacials/
farmerbraun:
Right on!
My question might be better phrased as this ; is climate sensitivity, to a given factor, a constant?
farmerbraun:
The concept called “the equilibrium climate sensitivity” (TECS) is represented by the climatological community to be a constant. However, it is easy to demonstrate the non-existence of TECS as a scientific concept. The non-existence is a consequence from the non-observability of the equilibrium temperature.
farmerbraun:
You ask if climate sensitivity (CS) is a constant.
Clearly, CS varies greatly over geological timescales because the climate system differs over such times e.g. because the continents move.
But that is not relevant to the present situation.
In absolute terms CS varies with atmospheric GHG concentration.
But, and very importantly, CS approximates to a constant for the present climate system and with possible future variations to atmospheric GHGs. That approximation is sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes.
This approximation is acknowledged by the IPCC which provides a range of GHG equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration over which it can be calculated before feedbacks.
The calculated CS before feedbacks is 1.0 to 1.2 deg. C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere. However, that is what CS would be if all else remained constant. And many things in the climate system will alter in response to a change to CS. These alterations are called ‘feedbacks’ because they change CS. Those which increase CS are said to be positive feedbacks and those which reduce CS are said to be negative feedbacks. The need is to determine the net effect of all feedbacks.
The actual CS is the CS which exists including the net effect of all feedbacks.
The IPCC uses values of actual CS obtained from model studies which are in the range 2.0 to 4.5 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere.
Actual CS is measured to be ~0.4 deg. C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere. This is important because AGW cannot be a problem if actual CS is less than 1 deg. C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere. I explain this with links to papers in my post in this thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/monckton-asks-ipcc-for-correction-to-ar4/#comment-1297902
It is not relevant whether or not CS has a theoretical reality according to some definition provided by somebody. What matters is what CS is measured to be in terms of the temperature change which occurs in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere.
There is one complexity. There is a time delay from the increase to atmospheric GHG and the resulting eventual temperature rise is achieved. This is the equilbrium sensitivity. This is an abstract concept because the system changes over time as a result of other effects (e.g. solar, volcanism, etc.) and, therefore the equilibrium is never achieved. But this is a trivial and insignificant issue. A change not achieved within a year is of little consequence: indeed, the absence of “committed warming” demonstrates that it is of no practical importance.
I hope this response is clear and answers what you wanted.
Richard
richardscourtney:
Contrary to your assertion to farmerbraun, the equilibrium climate sensitivity cannot be measured.
Terry Oldberg:
For the third time – and in desperate attempt to climb out of the hole you have of dug – you accuse me of saying what I have not.
Read what I wrote: I said your keeping posting your irrelevant hobby horse on threads is trolling: IT IS. I did not say you are a troll.
I am fed up with your false accusations. Take lessons in remedial reading comprehension.
Richard
richardscourtney:
You call me a liar and troll when you say “Why not stop telling lies and stop trolling WUWT threads with your twaddle?” Are you now withdrawing these attacks on my character?
Terry Oldberg:
STOP TROLLING.
I have made no attacks on your character (but I am becoming tempted to).
Richard
Friends:
As an example of the trolling from Oldberg I cite this.
I wrote
Oldberg has replied saying in total
Either this is extreme trolling or yet another demonstration that he cannot read.
I shall ignore ALL further communications addressed to me from Terry Oldberg.
(He never writes anything which makes sense.)
Richard
richardscourtney:
By refusing futher debate and being unable to refute my arguments you have, in effect, capitulated.
richardscourtney says:
“The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity obtained by Idso, by Lindzen&Choi, etc.. ”
I agree and surely the current lack of warming confirms this. IMO, the vertical movement of water vapour on a daily/hourly basis takes the heat above 90% of the CO2 “blanket”. IMO, the climate models are flawed in that they do not account for this dynamic/vertical transport of heat.
btw, thanks for being persistent and scientific in your posts.
Richard Courtney, I’m a long time lurker. I just read through the entire thread. The only significant misbehavior by anyone in this thread has been by you. Terry Oldberg and Sam Yates have been nothing but polite in this thread. Sam Yates in particular has bent over backwards trying to engage but not offend. You have engaged in attack after attack on their characters. I’m guessing you have some backstory with them, but that is neither here nor there. If you disagree with them, demolish their arguments. Calling them trolls and calling for everyone to ignore them is in the finest traditions of certain websites we know all too well. If you are weary of refuting their arguments, take a rest. This is a blog. They have a right to have their say. If they are spouting bullshit somebody will point it out. We all have a right to be wrong. The idea that wrong ideas should not be expressed usually come from the other side.
richardscourtney says:
May 5, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Thank you. If I have understood, then CS is the response (to a doubling of CO2 , for example) and
equilibrium sensitivity is the time delay to reach the new equilibrium (if other factors were to be notionally constant) .
farmerbraun:
In the literature of climatology, “climate sensitivity” and “the equilibrium climate sensitivity” are synonyms. Both are the change in the global temperature at equilibrium from a change in the logarithm to the base 2 of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Supposedly “the climate sensitivity” (aka “the equilibrium climate sensitivity”) is a constant.
farmerbraun:
At May 5, 2013 at 7:31 pm you ask me for clarification saying
Yes, but – as I said – the equilibrium sensitivity is an abstraction with no practical application. Only the immediate response to a change in GHG provides an indication of CS which is useful.
This is because everything is changing all the time so nothing stays “notionally constant”.
There is a problem from this and, perhaps, I was not sufficiently explicit.
I said the absence of “committed warming” demonstrates that the time delay to achieve the abstraction is overwhelmed by other changes within a year so the equilibrium CS is of no practical importance.
The problem is with the climate models and I explain this as follows.
1.
The time delay from increasing GHGs in the atmosphere creates the “committed warming”; i.e. following instantaneous warming from increased GHG, there is additional warming as the system adjusts towards the new equilibrium.
2.
The models incorporate this delay on the basis of modeled (i.e. mostly guessed) ways that the system continues to adjust to wards the abstract equilibrium sensitivity (which is never achieved).
3.
But the “committed warming” has not happened. And it is a lot of missing warming. The IPCC predicted (n.b. predicted and not ‘projected’) that “committed warming” would induce global temperature to rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
But there has been no such temperature rise so far and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”. So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
4.
This absence of the “committed warming” is clear empirical demonstration that the system responds such that when increased GHG concentration raises temperature then natural processes adjust such that progress towards the notional equilibrium CS is either halted or reduced to be insignificant.
5.
This lack of progress towards equilibrium CS is also evidence for a low CS (the importance of which I explained in my post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/monckton-asks-ipcc-for-correction-to-ar4/#comment-1297902 ).
6.
If something has an abstract existence but is too small to have discernible effects then it can be ignored for all practical purposes. Immediate change to CS from increased GHG is observed and has been measured in a variety of ways. But, and very importantly, it is observed that effects of adjustment to equilbrium CS are insignificant so can be ignored for practical purposes.
In summation, I repeat my words which I wrote and I have here tried to clarify.
“There is one complexity. There is a time delay from the increase to atmospheric GHG and the resulting eventual temperature rise is achieved. This is the equilbrium sensitivity. This is an abstract concept because the system changes over time as a result of other effects (e.g. solar, volcanism, etc.) and, therefore the equilibrium is never achieved. But this is a trivial and insignificant issue. A change not achieved within a year is of little consequence: indeed, the absence of “committed warming” demonstrates that it is of no practical importance.”
I hope the meaning of those words is now clear.
Richard
geoff:
re your post to me at May 5, 2013 at 7:23 pm.
This is not merely a blog: it is a scientific blog.
Indeed, WUWT is acknowledged as being the best scientific blog having won the award for that outright by winning it three years in a row. That success is formed by scientific discussion which is focused on the subject under discussion. Trolls attack WUWT, its scientific nature and its success by attempting to divert threads from their subject using any means to hand.
Trolls have completely derailed this thread from its subject. You may excuse that because they were “polite”. I do not.
Richard
richardscourtney:
It is misleading for you say that “trolls attack WUWT.” This “troll” attacked your bad ideas.
farmerbraun:
For purpose of clarity, I point out that in my posts to you I have been using terms as defined in the IPCC AR4 Glossary which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annex1sglossary-a-d.html
It says
The above first paragraph makes clear that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” is an abstraction which only exists in computer models.
The second paragraph defines that the “effective climate sensitivity is a related measure that circumvents the requirement of equilibrium”. And it is expressed as “the climate sensitivity parameter (units: °C (W m–2)–1)”.
I had thought it was clear in my postings on this that
(a) when discussing climate sensitivity (CS) I was referring to the climate sensitivity parameter
And
(b) when discussing equilibrium climate sensitivity I was referring to the equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Anyway, if there was any doubt then this post should have removed it.
Richard
richardscourtney:
In your response to farmerbraun a claim that you make about what the Glossary says is inconsistent with what it actually says. According to the Glossary, “The climate sensitivity parameter (units: °C (W m–2)–1) refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a unit change in radiative forcing.)” Thus, while the “effective climate sensitivity” circumvents the need for equilibrium, the “climate sensitivity parameter” does not.
– – – – – – –
geoff,
I had similar thoughts as you about what I consider intolerant
witch-huntertroll-hunter activities on this thread. I was pleasantly surprised at your balanced expression of a grand tradition for open intellectual discourse.Thank you.
John
John Whitman:
re your post at May 6, 2013 at 7:28 am.
geoff was NOT “balanced”. The most kindly interpretation is that he – and you – was duped.
I refer you to my answer to his diatribe. This link jumps to it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/monckton-asks-ipcc-for-correction-to-ar4/#comment-1298547
Or as Pedantic old Fart said at May 4, 2013 at 6:47 pm about this thread
The trolls won, and you approve. Sad, very sad.
Richard
Richard , thanks for the further clarification. I did in fact misapprehend the subject of the second sentence here-
“There is a time delay from the increase to atmospheric GHG and the resulting eventual temperature rise is achieved. This is the equilbrium sensitivity.” –
to be the time delay.
“Plain Richard says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:31 pm
“Also I think a lot of readers could be interested if the temperature increase has been accelerating (up until the the year of the ipcc report as well as up until now). I agree with Sam that it should be easy enough. See if a quadratic trend fits better to the data than a linear trend, see if there is a significant quadratic trend in addition to the linear trend, or whatever else one might use (I do not have the data nor a statistics program available at the moment).”
Let’s take that serious for a moment. Now the Keeling curve seems to go up pretty linearly since the 60ies, maybe a very slight exponential term in there.”
I would say it is not linear anymore, and appears accelerating. But that’s me. Still the point that mockton tries to raise is that the ipcc says warming increased while using shoddy statistics. But I’ ll follow your lead.
” We know that the CO2 forcing increases only logarithmically though, due to diminishing returns (pressure broadening gets weaker as the absorption spectrum gets more saturated).”
Not sure about pressure broadening, what do you mean with that? But agree with the logarithmic effect.
“When you try to fit the “accelerating trendlines” or your quadratic function to the temperature, how does that rhyme with the known logarithmic strengthening of the CO2 forcing?”
Good question! It should be shown if the -in my view- accelerating buildup of co2 in the atmosphere as such overpowers the logarithic effect of co2 (of course this being without possible feedback effects). Someone should calculate this.
“Answer, it doesn’t. ”
That’s actually the question. However this is interesting because it adds a third option to the 2 headlines I gave above:
Global warming accelerating. Athough ipcc uses stupid model to show it it is nevertheless true
Global warming not accelerating. Ipcc used flawed model to show that it was but were wrong.
Global warming not accelerating. Ipcc used flawed model to show that it was although they should have known it wasn’t theoretically possible at all.
(Note that richardscoutney doesn’t want this discussed, 😀 )
“Now, a trend is a model, and a model without a physical basis is numerology. Let’s look again at the propaganda graphic from the IPCC. They postulate something with it; tnhat the temperature acellerates ever faster ”
Nah, not for ever faster but for some time in any case 😉
“– draw the NEXT line and the line after that; they get increasingly vertical, right?”
Yes, there”s the weakness Moncton identifies.
“CO2 does not explain a physical mechanism for that. So which mechanism remains that could be used as the scapegoat? well, the postulated and never observed positive water vapor feedbnack; that’s the ticket! The only game in town!”
Yes, it is an important one, but not the only game, think reducing arctic ice cover (albedo) and possible methane releases in the arctic. Those have been posited.
“BUT, as the acceleration is already in full progression, shouldn’t we have already observed a measurable increase in water vapor content? We haven’t. The only candidate that the IPCC offers that could explain the acceleration is AWOL (and of course, temperates over the last 15 years have stagnated, probably because there is no increased water vapor; wouldn’t that fit much better as an explanation?)”
See above, and the idea that a relatively a lot of energy has flown into the ocean instead of the atmosphere because of predominantly La Niña cirsumstances. Article ice volume is reported to be seriously down. Melting ice costs energy as well. I am not telling that that is the way it is, only that that there are signs of warming that are not dependent on the usial temperature record.
Regards
@Eugene WR Callun
“Why do you believe the things SkS and Real Climate have to say? Because what they say is never refuted? ”
What? Where did Isay that?
Why is it never refuted? Because anyone who does attempt to refute it with comprehensible argument is banned from the sites and their comments “disappeared”. They let the occasional crazy post — as a convenient “straw man” they can knock down — but serious refutations of the pseudo-science on those sites is not allowed.
Take it up there
Didn’t you know that?
?
And you are worried about being banned here? What a laugh! About the only thing that can get you banned here is endlessly referencing to Nazis — which Anthony Watts seems to have a bug about.
I am not. What’s your point?
SkS and Real climate are held in low esteem here because quite a few people here have had their posts “disappeared” and been banned or what is even worse — had their comments altered by the moderators to say something which they never said!
Take it there!
Those sites believe in presenting “consensus”. Dissenters are not welcome.
Take it there!
The people who post articles here are highly intelligent people. The people who comment on this site rang from the truly brilliant to people like myself who are dog dumb. So the comments on your comments are going to vary quite a bit
I can live with that
Both of you seems to be people who are filled up with a lot of misinformation that you uncritically spout. Stick around and maybe you will learn something.
Next time please tell me smth I didn’t know already! I want to learn new stuff!
@richardscourtney
“I note that your post at May 4, 2013 at 5:28 pm repeated a silly point but
IGNORED MY QUESTION.
I repeat
Are you obtaining remuneration for you being an anonymous troll.”
Oh ignored your question? Poor dear! Now troll on!
*manners dear Richard, learn about manners*
@richardscourtney
“Plain Richard and Sam Yates:
You are a good double act doing a good job of deflecting the thread from its subject.
I make a suggestion. Go over to SkS and misbehave there. Or have you come from there.
Incidentally, and to trample your sidetrack into the dust:
1.
There has been no global warming or cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all available data sets. acceleration does NOT consist of stasis.
2.
According to the IPCC AR4 which is the subject of this thread the stasis was not possible because of committed warming. The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html”
Yawn! Nobody cares! I don’t! Stop trolling saying you have the only.truth!
@richardscourtney
“Plain Richard:
I note that your post at May 4, 2013 at 5:28 pm repeated a silly point but
IGNORED MY QUESTION.
I repeat
Are you obtaining remuneration for you being an anonymous troll? ”
I know a troll when I see one
@richardscourtney
Learn manners!
Plain Richard, who the heck are you? Are you Richard Courtney? Lord Monckton has the title and public prestige to push where others might be conveniently unheard.
Courtney’s claim that “There has been no global warming or cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all available data sets” is the unproved conclusion of an argument of which a premise is that the population mean varies linearly with the time. As I’ve already proved in this thread, Courtney’s “population” is non-existent.
– – – – – – –
Richard,
Thanks for your comment.
On this thread your scientific argument seemed to me to be reasonably prevailing (as I have often found to be the case over many threads over the years) so your unilateral initiation of uncivil name calling against Terry Oldberg and Sam Yates provoked my ‘ intolerant troll-hunting’ comment.
It is I who is sad, Richard.
John
In recent posts, Richard Courtney claims that in the parlance of the IPCC, “climate sensitivity” has a different meaning than “the equilibrium climate sensitivity.” However, at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html , first two sentences of section 8.6.1, the IPCC makes “climate sensitivity” synonymous with “the equilibrium climate sensitivity.” These sentences are: “Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing. It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (see Box 10.2).” Thus, under terminological conventions set in section 8.6.1, the climate sensitivity is identical to the equilibrium climate sensitivity in its scientific illegitimacy.
Mr. Ford asks how he too can complain to the IPCC about its bogus graph. The address for complaints is IPCC-Sec@wmo.int.
A troll asks why I did not complain about the graph earlier. As the head posting makes plain, I reported it in writing and in person to Railroad Engineer Pachauri in 2009. Nothing was done, so I have now complained using the new procedure laid down by the Inter-Academy Council. Since I have not yet had a reply to my complaint, I am also sending it to the Inter-Academy Council and to the police in Geneva.
Monckton of Brenchley says (May 8, 2013 at 3:51 am): “A … asks why I did not complain about the graph earlier. As the head posting makes plain, I reported it in writing and in person to Railroad Engineer Pachauri in 2009. Nothing was done, so I have now complained …”
==============================================================
Yeah, you complained on this blog in 2009. Nothing was done, right, so why exactly did you decide to wait with the letter to the IPCC until a few days ago, for more than 3 years?
You have yet to explain (if you wish, of course) your contradiction between your ““The graph is bogus not only because it relies on the made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia…” from 2009 and what you have written about the same graph four days ago in your head posting here: “The above graph appears correct“. (bold is mine)
I am sorry folks, I am a bit lost here. But Lord Monckton subscribed to the original IPCC data and comments. And actually attended the Copenhagen meeting. I don’t know what the complaint is about him or the ‘real’ Richard Courtney.
A troll who has never yet contributed anything constructive to these discussions whined that I did not complain to the IPCC about its erroneous graph before. When I point out that I did so three years ago, in person and in writing, but without success, he whines that I should not have waited three years before trying again. In fact, I drew the attention of the Inter-Academy Council to the error and asked it to use its good offices to ensure that this and numerous other errors were corrected, and that a proper procedure for handling reported errors was introduced. That procedure has now been introduced and I have taken advantage of it, in my capacity as an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report.
The same troll also sneers that I had previously questioned the HadCRUt data but have not questioned it in the complaint to the IPCC. Well, the IPCC is not responsible for the HadCRUt data, but it is responsible for the bogus conclusion it has drawn via its fraudulent statistical dodge. My complaint was rightly confined to the plainly fraudulent use by the IPCC of multiple trend lines to draw an inappropriate and statistically-unjustifiable conclusion from them to the effect that global warming is accelerating and that we are to blame. I note that the troll does not deny the IPCC’s fraudulent statistical artifice: instead, as usual, he looks everywhere except at the elephant in the room.
If the troll would like to learn some climate science rather than wasting his time sneering at those who have learned some, he may care to read the paper by Michaels & McKitrick that demonstrates a 100% exaggeration in the overland warming rate in the terrestrial temperature datasets during the satellite era, or to visit the various websites that demonstrate the numerous tamperings with the land-based datasets.