From July 13th 2013 in Houston. I was invited to give a presentation, and I adapted Dr. Matt Ridley’s excellent essay: A Lukewarmer’s Ten Tests and added supporting graphs and commentary along with my own work and findings. The video follows.
The video is 53 minutes long including Q&A.
I’m sure some people won’t like what I have to say, and/or will take issue with it. For those that will immediately pounce on the location, Houston, to suggest “big oil” was involved, I’ll provide full disclosure. There was mostly an aerospace interest due to Houston’s role in the space program, there was not a hint of the oil industry there.
I received airfare compensation, meals, and lodging, plus $250 for my three days of time (two of which were travel) for speaking. Compare that to what Al Gore gets.
I welcome suggestions readers might have for improvements to the presentation.
Other related videos include:
57:52 
1:00:44 
52:10 Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony , your presentation is excellent and you know I don’t give that kind of a valuation to many. Most of the time I am arguing with individulas..
I agree with you on each and every single point you made which refutes AGW theory, so we are on the same page as far as calling AGW theory incorrect.
The question is what really does cause the climate to change and as you know I maintain it is solar activity and the secondary effects associated with solar activity.
The CATCH is the degree of magnitude change of solar activity and duration of time change in solar activity has to reach a certain critical level in order to overcome random earthly climatic changes such as volcanic activity ,enso etc.etc.(which will mask minor solar changes), and the inherent negative feedbacks in the climatic system.
Also climatic thresholds are out there which can be reached if the change in solar activity is strong enough and long enough in duration through primary and secondary effects. Remember the climate system is non linear,different outcomes with the same forcings can happen, but thresholds are also out there. This is why only a general climatic forecast in my opinion can be made.
I maintain the solar activity we had from the end of the Dalton Minimum through 2005 brought us out of the Dalton Minimum, to the general rise in temperatures up through early this century. Since 2005 however the prolonged solar minimum started and this is going to reverse the current upward trend.
Anthony, let me take this further ,all of the points you make about AGW theory not being correct and the temperature rise being even less then suggested ,due to inaccurate temperature recordings along with the urban heat island effect ,despite a very active sun post Dalton-2005 give credence to the fact that now an inactive sun is going to be even more likely to cause cooling.
Past history shows if you take past prolonged solar minimums, and past active solar periods and correlate them to the corresponding temperature trend change (not absolute temp. readings neccessarily) that there is a pretty strong correlation.
Anthony ,I LIKE , the way you are going about this as far as showing how unfounded the AGW theory is.
Anthony, I predict this current prolonged solar minimum will result in the AGW theory being obsolete before this decade ends..
Solar readings I maintain will bring about a more definitive cooling trend going forward following several years of sub solar activity in general . Which started during year 2005 in earnest.
solar flux sub 72 but sub 90 should start the downward impact,sustained.
solar wind sub 300 km/sec but sub 350 km/sec should start the process sustained
solar irradiance off .015 or greater
solar extreme UV light off upwards of 50%
solar ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time
Note: a weakening earth magnetic field will serve to compound all solar effects.
Thanks for putting up the Doc Essex talk. SUMMARY:Climate models are crap – mathematical flagellation (to be polite).
Anthony ,you are so very thoughtful,and detailed in how you approach this subject. This is what is needed for the field of climatalogy more of your approach.
I think you take into consideration all that is said(from people like myself) about why the climate changes ,but will never commit to anything unless it meets all of your rigorus stipulations beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This is the approach I like. I think two appraoches are needed, guys like myself and many others that come up with alternative reasons for why the climate changes, and how it might change, and then guys like yourself that evaluate and wait and see based through detail evidence, such as you have done with AGW.
I would like to have you someday give a video presentation on the pros and cons of solar changes versus the climate based on information you yourself have obtained from various sources, including my take if I may so.Thanks.
I am interested in what you have to say.
Mr. Watts,
Your presentation may have been useful in 2012, but doesn’t touch today’s pressing climate issue, “Carbon Pollution”.
I’d put a sarc tag here, but “Carbon Pollution” really is the latest Climate Speak.
It’s all our fault and we must be made to pay (and pay.)
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
“The question is what really does cause the climate to change and as you know I maintain it is solar activity and the secondary effects associated with solar activity.”
_________________________________
Greeting Mr. Del Prete,
Can you present any data linking solar activity to any observed change in climate?
I suggest as a start to take a look at the Maunder Minimum,and Dalton Minimum and the theories as to why the climate was as it was during those periods of time.
Anthony, please don’t read your slides in the future. That’s an insult to your audience – and bores the bejesus out of them. Figure out what the foot stomper is for each slide, the take away message, and talk to that.
Andy Wehrle
Stafford, Va
I thought Anthony did it great, no need to change anything in his presentation.
Probably one of the best presentations on the topic I’ve seen yet.
My change to skepticism was similar. I tried to look at the data. A skeptic had asked me to show proof with actual data. So I downloaded the data for a certain city and found that I had trouble even reading the data into my software (I’m a programmer). I found that most temperature data records in any given city were really shoddy. After I couldn’t even get out of the gate so to speak, I slowly became a skeptic.
Anthony, like a hundred others up list, I found your talk on video exceptional in its organization, clarity, and content. The broadcaster in you really came out. You know how to tell a story and keep someone’s attention.
I urge you to add a link to this blog post and video to your About: Anthony Watts page. Much of the video has the subtext of how a Purdue trained meteorologist accepted much of James Hansen’s 1988 warning, but then that meteorologist started looking at the data, the measurements, the analysis. That meteorologist chose to believe his eyes more than his ears.
In the video (@7:00), you say that you went to Purdue University, and worked as a research assistant the in meteorology department. Anthony, that alone make you more of a “climate scientist” than a lot of today’s computer modelers that never field collected a proxy. You literally got your hands dirty with Stephenson Screens and data collection. You have been more responsible for the QC of USHCN data than most Ph.D’s. The weather has been your business for 30+ years. You are a first class climate scientist, degreed or not. “While I’m not a degreed climate scientist…” — you are too modest. A sentence about Purdue meteorology research is worth adding to your “About me” page.
I took the liberty to create a timestamed index to the video with a few notes to content.
00:00 Introduction
01:19 About me.
01:53 I’m a green guy, solar power, elec. Car., Calif. Elect rates.
02:53 Listening to Hansen. “It moved me.” “I became an activist.”
04:40 What changed me? Jim Goodrich. There was something else going on.
05:45 “Light bulb moment” 1996 graph. CO2 is “not an intelligent molecule.”
07:00 “Studied at Purdue” meteorology dept research assistant.
09:00 Stevenson Screen painting experiment. (2007)
10:00 Inspect official USHCH stations: Oddities. 11:00 Marysville, CA
11:45 “This is where they are measuring climate?!?” Officially?!? Really!?!
12:45 The Ten Tests:
13:15 1. The Temperature So Far. Is it alarming? M. Ridley information.
14:55 Steve Goreham graph. “The Thin Red Line”. Warming Change is small compared to daily and seasonally temp change from Chicago, IL.
15:45 2. Amplification and Feedbacks. Do they perform as advertised. Doran et al 2002. Surface Temp by Latitude, 3 episodes. Water vapor feedback. 17:30 IPCC graph, portion due to feedbacks. Water vapor by radiosonds.
17:50 3. The role of aerosols. Have they stunted Global Warming? Graph of Climate models and observations. No big Volcanic eruptions in past decade. Aerosols are insufficient excuse.
19:07 4. Arctic Sea Ice Decline. NH Sea Ice Anomally. Established a new stable plateau with higher variability? 19:55 Antarctic Ice is growing. 20:20: Soot a factor in the melt?
21:55 5. Failure of the Models to Predict “the Pause”. Rose graph 2012. IPCC AR5 draft leak divergence. 22:50 Spencer “EPIC FAIL”. 23:10: Nature editorial. Models and reality don’t match.
23:45 Year 0 to 2000 temps. Natural factors can change temps. Nothing unprecedented today.
24:15 6. Climate Sensitivity. Pat Michaels, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity graph. Distribution Curve, between 1 and 2.2. 25:15 Woods Hole: Correlation of CO2 to Temps. 25:45 Soup = Atmosphere, CO2 = Salt.
26:25: Log CO2 Warming Illustrated. (IPCC equation graph) Modtran calc.
27:25 replace hearing aid battery
28:00 7. Adaption to Changing Climate. Graph of death rates over last century. We’ve adapted. 28:50 Boston Harbor.
29:28 8. Climate and Future Generations. Chart of energy sources.
30:10 9. Reducing Emissions. CO2 already going down. Not Solar, Not Wind. It is Shale Gas revolution. From 1948 to today, 30:50. Renewables 9.3% to 9.4% because nuclear increased. Thorium reactor program.
31:35 10. The Integrity of the Surface Temperature Record. (see also 07:00-12:45) Waterville, WA.
32:10 Urbana, OH sewage treatment plant with refrigeration unit.
33:05 Ontario, OR FLIR photo at sewage treatment plant. Paper forms, thermometers where people can fill them out.
34:10 Perry, OK fire station. FLIR.
34:25 Wickenburg, AZ. Brick wall heat sink.
34:45 Baltimore, MD NWS forecast office roof. 13 new records, none in neighboring. All stations shown have since been closed.
35:35 Bainbridge, GA. Wilbur, WA, Detroit Lakes, MN. Stevenson screen moved closer to building to avoid mercury hazmat situation.
36:35 Tucon, AZ, Univ. of AZ Atmospheric Science Dept. Worst example in database.
37:28 Hanksville, UT. Comical. Over historical tombstone to keep from tripping over it in the dark.
38:20 Graph of USHCN siting Classes. Trend from the 5 classes.
39:50 Graph “All Rates Stations in the CONUS” published last year.
40:40 In Summary
1. Temperature Trend – NOT ALARMING
2. Ampl and Feedback – NOT EVIDENT
3. Role of Aerosols – ISNT SIGNIFICANT
4. Arctic Sea Ice – ISN’T GLOBAL, MAY BE SOOT.
5. Failure of Models to Predict “the Pause” – CONFIRMED.
6. Climate Sensitivity – IS LIKELY LOW.
7. Adaption to Climate Change – IS POSSIBLE
8. Future Generations – MAY NOT NEED OUR HELP
9. Reducing Emissions – ISN’T BEING DONE GLOBALLY
10. Integrity of the Surface Temp Record
— CREATES ALMOST A DOUBLING OF THE TEMPERATURE TREND. An artificial temp rise.
41:35 Parting Thoughts.
“At the moment is seems the cure is worse than the disease.
We are taking chemotherapy for a cold.
42:15 Questions:
Re: Matt Ridley, WSJ, July 6, column: Models are wrong. Thermometers set at airports. Cities have grown. UHI bias. Watts: Korea study: UHI most of warming. Critics didn’t go there to measure UHI. It was all statistical.
45:06 Q: CAGW proponents are changing their arguments. How do you deal with it? A: GW, CC, Climate Disruptions, Extreme Weather, Poisoned Weather. Models aren’t working. Make us afraid of weather. Timeline of technology. News moved slowly. Then trains. Then radio, then TV in early 50s. Live News. Internet. People could contribute with cell phones photographing weather. A tornado in a cornfield in Kansas is now on CNN. We are seeing small tornados more easily.
48:55 Q: Mauna Loa CO2 measurement on Volcano? A: I believe them. Measurement in a well mixed environment, remote ocean, and wind off ocean.
50:45 Q: Horse and buggy society? But Animal Rights groups will object.
51:50 Q: Franklin Institute did soot on snow experiment.
52:25: Q:Adaptation is happening. We’ve adapted to UHI without realizing it.
52:56 End.
Thanks, Brian, but, that’s not the point … it DESERVES to be a sticky and I think you can work out the logos why …
.
A minor criteque. When you talk about siting issues, please make the distiction between a water plant and a wastewater plant clearer. I’ve worked in both and there is a difference when you turn on the tap. 😎
Otherwise, cudos and thanks.
Babsy says:
August 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm
pesadia says:
August 17, 2013 at 1:08 pm
You wrote: Having spent all (or most) of my life as professional salesman, I am not scientifically educated.
Here’s a definition you may use to start your scientific education: Science deals with facts that are documentable and reproducible.
….and falsifiable
Hi, Pamela,
Re: “Janice you suggest making the same errors CAGWers do,” (8/18 at 9:59am)
I see your point, but, I think that the scientific validity of the anti-CAGW arguments is not equivalent to the blatant disregard for the scientific method and conjecture (and, in some cases, downright lies) that characterize CAGW “science.” That is, we on the side of truth CAN state it boldly, for it stands on solid evidence.
Advocating for truth to persuade, the purpose of a presentation such as that of the above video, requires positive, accurate-yet-bold, argumentation. That is, while when discussing the underlying science of climate change, treading carefully, including all the reservations and disclaimers and confidence levels is appropriate. When making a case to persuade, however, a completely different style must be used if one is to be effective.
I must tell you, Ms. Gray, I am so grateful that you regularly post on WUWT. There are so FEW genuine scientists who are women who do that. While it is, like beards, lol, not of vital importance that there be women commenters with science credentials on this site, I find it inspiring that you are here, and, no doubt, so do any girls or young women silently reading. I wish Anna and Rhoda and others who occasionally post would do so more often.
I hope all is well with you in Eastern Oregon — and not too hot!
Take care.
Your (non-scientist) sister in the fight for Truth in Science,
Janice
*********************************************************
Dear Anthony,
Re: reading from slides
Education requires much repetition. Reading what is written on the slides verbatim reinforces your message and ties your oral presentation to your exhibits (otherwise, your speech and your slides become mutually distracting). By ADDING new details after reading each sub-part of each slide, you prevent the boredom of ONLY reading what was written and saying no more. So, DO BOTH!
#(:))
Yours,
Janice
@Stephen Fisher Rasey, thanks. My hearing issue had the biggest impact on my college years, a story I’ll tell someday. Becoming a broadcaster was serendipity that happened in the Purdue Met department hallway. And for me it was a godsend, since for the first time I had a job where I didn’t have to strain to hear/interact, only talk.
19 Aug: BBC: Matt McGrath: Climate leaks are ‘misleading’ says IPCC ahead of major report
Sensitive questions
According to the leak, they will put it down to natural meteorological variations and other factors which could include greater absorption of heat into the deep oceans – and the possibility that the climate is less sensitive to carbon dioxide than had previously been believed.
Many climate sceptics have argued that this is a key factor behind the temperature slowdown, and a good reason not to believe the more extreme predictions of those they dismiss as warmist conspirators.
But those involved with the IPCC say that even now, just a month away from publication you would be “foolish in the extreme” to take this latest leak as conclusive.
“It is guaranteed it will change,” said Jonathan Lynn, spokesman for the IPCC. “In September the scientists will go through the 15 page summary for policymakers, line by line.”…
“We’ve already given it to governments for their thoughts, and we’ve had 1,800 comments on that 15 page document,” he said…
The ongoing problems with leaks is one of the reasons behind the mutterings that this large scale, multi faceted report from the IPCC could be its last…
Lynn: “I think there will certainly be an IPCC in the future but there may not be these big block-buster events.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23755901
Please forgive me, Anthony, for in my earlier smarty pants post, i neglected to tell you:
WELL DONE, SIR!!!
Very interesting presentation indeed. Learned a lot of new things. I didn’t know about your ears though, that sucks. I had a similar issues when I was a kid and my ears are slowly failing me. I hope to hear more presentations from you soon, I find it is a lot easier for someone like me (who isn’t as privy to all the jargon and technical information) to learn and understand when you present it.
Unless I misunderstood it, the segment on aerosols was misleading. Volcanic aerosols do have transient cooling effects on climate, but the sulfate aerosols that are conjectured by IPCC to be masking a significant amount of global warming are the result of fossil fuel combustion, largely coal plants. There are several critical problems with this conjecture. One is the fact that each climate model has to use a different value in order to properly hindcast past temperature, making it basically an adjustable parameter. Another problem is that since these aerosols have lifetimes of days to weeks in the atmosphere, their signature of cooling should be correlated with regions where emissions are largest. This is not seen. In any event you may wish to examine that segment of your presentation.
Margaret Smith says:
August 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm (replying to)
Babsy says:
August 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm
pesadia says:
August 17, 2013 at 1:08 pm
However, it is SPECIFICALLY your experience as a salesman that more than qualifies you as a “scientist” fully capable of inventing, improving, analyzing and continuing the CAGW dogma of exaggeration, extremism, despair, extrapolation and propaganda. Then again, as you are an “honest salesman” with a reputation to maintain among your brethren and fellow honest salesmen, I think they will degrade and spurn you should you ever stoop that low as to represent the CAGW religion.
An excellent presentation which is very understandable to the lay person.
Thanks for sticking this at the top Anthony, I can’t tell some rather dense parties much easier than 1) search for WUWT 2) go to the returned site http://WATTSUpWithThat.com 3) click and read to top article about the story and video on “Doctors for Disaster Preparedness”. If they can’t can’t make it that far, I give.
I’ll post as I review.
The first comment I would make is it would be good to explain the theory of global warming. It’s not too hard: incoming radiation is invisible to C02, it is bounced back out as IR, a C02 molecule grabs the photon, and spits the photon back out in a random direction instead of letting it exit the atmosphere, bouncing some back to earth. I personally think this thinking explains a lot of what is going on, the AHA! moment, not realize the many other aspects that affect climate.
Presentation style is really good once you get going. I have presented often too, and I’m initially hesitant, but as I get out of intro and into the material, it flows.
This is for you, Anthony — GO, BOILERMAKERS!
I hope the sound quality is still enjoyable — if not, WOW, the visuals will totally compensate.
When they make that train walk forward, even I, a non-Purdue alum, felt a thrill of pride for your alma mater. IMPRESSIVE.