Robert Scheaffer reports from the meeting via email:
Mann just told TAM (The Amazing Meeting of the Skeptics Society) that there has been no pause in Global Warming, and says claims that there has been are just ‘Cherry Picking’.
Also he used Marcott et al. as proof that his Hockey Stick is valid.
Surely he must know that the authors themselves disavow that conclusion!! Like a creationist, he uses arguments he knows to be false, but the audience doesn’t.
He did not take any questions, however very few of the other speakers did either.
Hopefully we’ll have video to post here soon.
No word yet what Penn and Teller think.
UPDATE: here is a photo of James Randi and Mike Mann. Mike looks a bit starstruck.
This might make a good caption contest.
UPDATE2: I’m actually in Houston tonight, and dashed off this posting earlier on my way to a meeting, and in my haste neglected to mention that the report was from Robert Scheaffer, one of the speakers there and I added the links to WUWT articles. That oversight has since been fixed. The photo above is also his. -Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Who are you going to believe, Michael Mann with his proxies and computer models, or your lying thermometer?
Ryan says:
“Maybe Ryan can explain why The Economist, and the NY Times, and even über-alarmist Phil Jones all admit that global warming has stopped. ”
Because they’re not including oceans.
Yes they are. In precisely the same manner that they and others did when they were making wild claims about warming.
The warming, as previously defined by warmists, has been stopped for a period approximating that which it was supposed to have occurred. Deal with it.
Anthony Watts said:
“No word yet what Penn and Teller think.
UPDATE: here is a photo of James Randi and Mike Mann.”
James Randi is a relative skeptic of CAGW in the following article by him (which has an one-word typo on warming versus cooling at one point, but that doesn’t detract from it significantly overall):
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
Penn & Teller … I’m not sure on but probably are skeptical to a degree, about CAGW claims in general, although I don’t know if they would have had exposure to seeing real temperature history data outside of Mann/media/etc. propagandists. Here’s part of a 2008 comment:
“My partner, Teller, and I are professional skeptics. We do magic tricks in our live show in Las Vegas, and we have a passion for trying to use what we’ve learned about fooling people to possibly get a little closer to the truth. Our series on Showtime tries to question everything — even things we hold dear.
James Randi is our inspiration, our hero, our mentor and our friend. Randi taught us to use our fake magic powers for good. Psychics use tricks to lie to people; Randi uses tricks to tell the truth.
During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they’re branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn’t know.“
EDIT: I forgot the link for the latter quote. Here it is:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/03/opinion/oe-jillette3
The above is for my comment of a minute ago, invisible at the moment. Apparently it is in moderation queue, unlike the edit comment. (Perhaps I hit some word causing filter delay). It’ll probably appear soon.
JimF says: “I believe the Bible account of the formation of everything at the outset. ”
“Everything was empty and then magic happened” is hardly an explanation. Either way, Darwin’s “On The Origin Of Species” does not mention anything about the creation of the universe. Darwin merely deals with continental drift, the fossil records, animals populating islands and how they evolve. Simple and easy to understand concepts.
“Darwin merely deals with continental drift, the fossil records, animals populating islands and how they evolve. Simple and easy to understand concepts.”
Darwin dealt with continental drift?
wow
Cessation of the 1°F/century warming after the LIA would be most regrettable. Be careful what you wish for!
Doesn’t he run the risk that someone will remember what he said when they later read James Hansen’s admission of a pause? Is it really possible that few of the people he was addressing will discover what’s going on here?
You can go from school board to school board giving speeches claiming evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics and when someone at one meeting points out it’s a false claim you can still make the claim at your next speech because the chances are good that no one there will know what was said at the last one. You see it all the time from Discovery Institute Fellows and other such lobbyists. But I would think that a high profile group like TAM would be a riskier place to pull this stuff. Isn’t it possible that someone within James Randi’s circle might let him know that Mann just lied to him?
Rune…Darwin spoke on continental drift?
Briefly after his statement, Mann had to be doused by a fire-fighting plane because his legwear combusted in a spectacular fashion.
Here’s a question/thought.
Has anyone seen or read a peer reviewed paper by Mann that is actually scientifically sound or shown to be reasonably valid? I’m simply curious as to whether he has always been an idiomatic follower of ‘climate fashion’……..
Looking at the photo of Mann I would have said it had been taken in some institution for the feeble minded if I hadn’t known ——
As per my spreadsheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnTohu4oFUbcdEgzTkpEYTAwN1BiXzJXMXZ5RVJiOUE#gid=0 the negative slope range for the datasets are as follows. Note that June updates are not yet available for NOAA/NCDC and the 2 HadCRUT versions.
HadCRUT3 April 1997 to May 2013
HadCRUT4 November 2000 to May 2013
GISS February 2001 to June 2013
UAH July 2008 to June 2013
RSS December 1996 to June 2013
NOAA/NCDC December 2000 to May 2013
Photo caption.
“Take my advice, Michael, if you want to remain a member of the eco-taliban you’re gonna have to grow a better beard”
I’d be a bit star-struck meeting Randi, so I don’t blame him for that.
Equally, the organisation he figureheads and the principles they attempt to adhere to are admirable.
It’s interesting that the likes of, say, Penn Jillette who acknolwedges Randi as a major influence and who he respects enormously, has this in his Wikipedia entry:
“Jillette has stated that there is not enough information to make an informed decision on global warming, and that it is an emotion versus logic issue”
That Randi / TAM is a love-in for AGW is not a given.
That’s the organisation that Randi figureheads, not Mann.
Caption:
“Weak your evidence is. Achieve statistical significance, or do not achieve statistical significance. There is no try.”
Oops, just noticed the reference to Penn and Teller in the text. Redface.
Caption: “Watch as I bend this hockey stick without touching it…simply by the power of my mind.”
‘The amazing Mann gives no pause’
AGU, Richard Alley, climate zombies and warming has stopped!
Penn and Teller do have an episode dedicated to global warming. And in their particular style, pretty much demolish the alarmist PoV.
“Then you’ll see, that it is not the hockey-stick that bends, it is only yourself.”
Scientists discuss and investigate anomalies. Scientists develop and discuss competing hypothesis which is part of the process used to solve scientific problems. Scientists do not have agendas. Scientists abandon hypotheses when the data and analysis does not support the hypothesis in question. Propagandists manipulate data and analysis to push an agenda. Propaganda does not however change reality.
It appears the planet has started to cool. Cooling is only possible if the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds. It is difficult to imagine how a propagandist will attempt to explain global cooling.
There are multiple failures/discrepancies (at least five) of the general circulation models and the CO2 forcing theory.
1) There has been a warming plateau for 16 years which is a more serious discrepancy than a lack of warming. As atmospheric CO2 has been increasing continually for the last 16 years and as there is a lag from an increase in forcing to a change in temperature, the general circulation models predicted a wiggly increase in planetary temperature where the wiggles are caused by natural variability in the climate and the gradual increase is caused by the increased forcing due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. What is observed is not only a lack of warming but rather a plateau of planetary temperature. … ….The logical constraint on the forcing mechanisms is different for a lack of warming (planetary temperature is still increasing but less than the general circulation models prediction) and a plateau where there is no increase in planetary temperature. … ….Aerosols or heat hiding in the ocean could explain a lack of warming, where planetary temperatures are increasing but less than model predictions, they cannot explain a plateau of warming. … ….The CO2 forcing mechanism cannot be turned off, if it is real. As atmospheric CO2 is continually increasing the aerosols or the heat hiding in the ocean would need to exactly balance the CO2 forcing and to start in 1998. i.e. There needs to be a mechanism that hides the CO2 forcing that is suddenly turned on in 1998 and that hiding or cooling mechanism must increase overtime to create the observed plateau in planetary temperature. To explain a plateau where there is no increase in planetary temperature during a period when atmospheric CO2 is steadily increasing, the CO2 mechanism must saturate. The logical constraints of the other observational discrepancies indicate that the CO2 mechanism saturated at say 200 ppm, less than the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level, 280 ppm and that the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds caused the Little Ice Age cooling and the James Hansen warming in the last 70 years.
Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating? (William: Why did global warming plateau in 1998?)
Lack of warming
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/monckton-on-his-smashing-u-n-wall-of-silence-on-lack-of-warming-and-censure/
2) Observed warming is not global. As atmospheric CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere (less than 5% variance by latitude) the potential for CO2 forcing in the atmosphere is roughly the same for all latitudes. The actual forcing at the latitude in question due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should be proportional to the long wave radiation that is emitted off to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Based on how the CO2 mechanism works therefore the observed warming should be global with most of the warming occurring in the tropics, based on the CO2 theory. What is observed is that the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics experienced twice as much warming as the planet as a whole and four times as much warming as the tropics. Furthermore the Greenland Ice sheet experienced the most warming on the planet (2 to 3C). The observed latitudinal pattern of pattern cannot be explained by the CO2 mechanism.
Comment:
The aerosol forcing is highest in the Northern Hemisphere. If aerosols in the atmosphere were the reason for a plateau in warming the Northern Hemisphere should have warmed less than the global as a whole. The aerosol forcing does not explain why the Greenland Ice sheet warmed the most of any region on the planet or why there is very little warming in the tropics.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
3) Tropical tropospheric hot spot is missing. The general circulation models predict that the most amount of warming in terms of change in temperature should be in the tropics in the troposphere at around 8km above the surface of the planet. This warming is due to increased water vapor due to warming of the tropics by the CO2. The warming at 8 km if it occurred would amplify the CO2 forcing. There is no observed tropical tropospheric warming. In addition, analysis of changes in radiation when there is a change in ocean temperature indicates the planet resists forcing changes by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropics which results in more or less radiation being reflected off to space, rather than amplifies forcing changes. These two discrepancies are logically supportive. Part of the reason why there is no tropical tropospheric hot spot is that the clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing. Part of the reason why there has not been significant warming in the tropics is planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases to resist forcing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-20N-20S.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/
There is no tropical tropospheric hot spot, Douglass et al’s paper.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
Lindzen and Choi have again found that the planet resists climate forcing changes
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
4) There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo-climatic record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes (9 in the interglacial period and 13 in the glacial period). The same regions of the planet that warmed in the last 70 years are the same regions that warmed in the past. An example of the past cyclic warming is the Medieval Warm period which was followed by the Little Ice age when the solar magnetic cycle entered the Maunder minimum. The past warming and cooling cycles were not caused by changes to atmospheric CO2. The general circulation models cannot produce the past warming and cooling cycles that is observed.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
5. The planet has started to cool with the observed cooling and increased precipitation matching the regional pattern of climate change observed in the Little Ice Age. There has been a sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle. Planetary cooling requires a step change in forcing. Solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover is the step change in forcing.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
A warming pause relates to mere noise at the end of a plot whereas the real backbone of the skeptical argument is how official data show utterly no trend change in our high CO2 era, assuming you plot them simply instead of as propaganda, like this:
http://oi56.tinypic.com/2reh021.jpg