IPCC has never waited for 30-year trends, and they were right.
Guest essay by Barry Brill
Under pressure at a media conference following release of its Summary for Policymakers, AR5 WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker is reported to have said that “climate trends should not be considered for periods less than 30 years”.
Some have seen this as the beginning of an IPCC ploy to continue ignoring the 16-year-old temperature standstill for many years into the future. But even the IPCC must know that any such red herring is dead in the water:
1. When James Hansen launched the global warming scare in 1988, there had been no statistically significant warming over the previous 30 years and the warming trend during 1977-87 was 0.0°C. The IPCC was also established that year.
Source: Woodfortrees plot
2. At the time of the first IPCC report in 1991 (FAR), the warming trend was barely 11 years old.
Source: Woodfortrees plot
3. Most significantly, the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 adopted the UNFCCC treaty on the basis of a 30-year cooling trend followed by only 12 years of warming. That treaty dogmatically redefined “climate change” as being anthropogenic and eventually committed over 190 countries to combat “dangerous” warming.
4. The latest WG1 report bases its assessment of sea level rise and ocean heat content on the trend in satellite readings which have been available for only 19 years, coupled with ARGO reports for a period less than a decade. There is no apology for the short periods.
5. In 2007, the AR4 made much of the fact that the warming trend over the previous 15 years exceeded 0.2°C/decade. In 2013, the AR5 plays down the fact that there is no significant warming at all during the previous 15 years. (But AR5 cites 0.05°C/decade without mentioning that this figure is ±0.14°C).
6. If the IPCC wants to focus on 30-year trends, why did it make no comment on the fact that the current 30-year trend has fallen to 0.174°C/decade from the 0.182°C/decade trend that was the (1992-2006) backdrop to the AR4? Particularly, as the intervening 6-year period has been characterised by record increases in CO2 emissions.
7. Dr Stocker’s criticism of short-term trends as being influenced by start and end dates, ignores that long-term trends are similar. He picked a 60-year period (1951-2010) to produce a 0.12°C/decade trend, when a 70-year or 80-year period would have shown a much-reduced trend of 0.07°C.
8. WG1 scientists found it appropriate to include a statement in the AR5 SPM that
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
3 months later, this crucial sentence was disappeared by a secret conclave of politicians/bureaucrats – not by scientists.
9. Dr Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), told journalist David Rose that his question about the standstill was “ill-posed”. The WMO issues manuals on best practice for climatology and regards itself as the premier authority on measuring temperature trends. Here is what its manual WMO GUIDE TO CLIMATOLOGICAL PRACTICES (3RD EDTN) has to say about 30-year periods:
Chapter 4.8.1 Period of calculation“A number of studies have found that 30 years is not generally the optimal averaging period for normals used for prediction. The optimal period for temperatures is often substantially shorter than 30 years, but the optimal period for precipitation is often subtantially greater than 30 years.”And (at page 102):“The optimal length of record for predictive use of normals varies with element, geography, and secular trend. In general, the most recent 5‑ to 10‑year period of record has as much predictive value as a 30‑year record.”
Prior to release of the SPM, Bloomberg reported that some countries (notably Germany) wanted to wholly ignore the temperature standstill and pretend that the 20-year-old paradigm was still intact.
Few expected that would happen, predicting a sharply-reduced best estimate of sensitivity and rueful acknowledgment that natural factors had been under-estimated. The fact that days of debate culminated in this absurd canard about 30-year trends is a powerful indicator of just how desperate the climate establishment has now become.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is this not the final version of the AR5 SPM?
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
From there;
The language change is a better reflection of the full facts, not just a slice – although it includes the slice of interest. GCMs generally do not do well at short-term ‘predictions’ on these time scales, so why not say so in a general way in the summary? They go into detail for the 1998 – 2012 period in the main report, beginning with;
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf (largish download)
That may not be the headline some people prefer, but it seems reasonable to me, and takes in the main factors that have been argued in the blog wars on it.
PS, it would be great if the bureaucrats kept their paws off these reports, but someone would then complain that the scientists are pontificating from their ivory tower etc etc. Seems the scientists were backing a more ‘skeptical’ wording. Fancy that.
– – – – – – –
herkimer,
Thanks for your response.
I had thought you might be in Herkimer, NY. I am in the Southern Adirondack Mtns, in the Town of Northampton, NY for my annual autumn leaf stay at our lakehouse.
I see that Burlington, ON and Town of Northampton, NY are separated by the east-west length (~200 mi) of one of the big inland ponds (Lake Ontario).
Neighbors but not quite cozy ones, in the distance sense anyway. ; )
John
Herkimer says
Glad to see that you doing your own number crunching rather than blindly accepting what some biased or politically controlled scientist might say
Henry says
Thanks for that comment/
I will see to the improvements, 1) short summary in front and 2) dates rather than counted years
Note that I looked mostly at maximum temperatures to give me the lead
(=energy in)
What earth does with that incoming energy and what it happens to produce itself at this point of time in history is somewhat of a different story which may either cause delays or strengthen the trend.A lot of it depends on how much heat is stored in the oceans during the “warming” years.
But I think I solved the puzzle. If 2016 equals to about 1927, then, according to my projection, it follows that the dust bowl droughts can be expected to start around 2021. It will also get progressively drier and cooler at the higher latitudes from 2000. (e.g. check Anchorage!!)
I am pretty sure that my results are repeatable, if you all were to look just at maximum temps. in your own backyards. Pity though that there are still only a few of us who have seen that global cooling is coming.
(Although my wife still laughs at me when I talk of a drop of about 0.3 -0.5 until 2039. Current cooling trend is about -0.1 /decade but I wonder if someone has already started hiding the decline?)
See here. (and thanks to Barry)
And what was to follow Hansen etal’s ‘trick’ in 1988 was…. (the New World Order)… mass adjustments to the global temperature records, manipulation and massive deletion of which temperature stations are even included in the charts manufactured with the sole purpose to alarm the naive public and the clueless politicians. It’s really not that hard to dig and find out where all of the hypothetical “global warming” originated. Both NOAA and GISS publish time series graphs showing the circa +0.7°C adjustments made to the temperature records to hike the trend line, it’s not like they are hiding the truth from anyone, its just so few people actually get up off their hinds and exert the effort to find out for themselves, and that includes most who call themselves scientists evidently.
wayne,
as the statistically non-significant flat trend for 1977 – 87 remains in the current GISS record, it looks like they forgot to include that decade in their ‘manipulations’. There is a small, statstically significant trend for the 30 years prior – almost flat, though – so it looks like they didn’t utilise that period for for manipulation possibilities either. And if they are manipulating the temperature record to fake increasing trends, they obviously forgot to include the last 15 years, which shows a slowdown in every data set.
Considering every data set from proponents and critics (UAH Spencer, Christy) alike shows statistically significant warming over the last 30 years of similar magnitude, even with raw data, and that this result has been corroborated by climate critics on blogs who actually bother to do the work (eg Jeff Condon at The Air Vent), and similarly for Anthony Watts paper regarding average US temps, one wonders what you are talking about.
Hansen predicted warming from 1988. The magnitude was wrong but the sign was right. Not bad, considering surface temp trends from the three decades previous had not given much indication of the future.
The people who got off their hindquarters crunched the numbers and came up with pretty much the same conclusions as the institutes doing the temp records. Armchair critics don’t even bother to use their mouse to check this information.
There is no longer any doubt the world has warmed over the last 30, 50 or a hundred years, particularly as there are many more indicators other than surface temperatures corroborating. The reality-based debate has moved on to other points. Come join us.
AndyG55 says: @ur momisugly September 30, 2013 at 4:13 am
We need to also remember that around 1991 is when Hansen started making wholesale adjustments to the GISS record…
How much of that trend was real, and how much was created !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Most of it!
Jo Nova’s graphic comparison of Hansen’s GISS of 1980, 1987 and 2007 vintages.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
Steven Goddard’s look at The Size Of The USHCN Adjustment:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/quantifying-the-size-of-the-ushcn-adjustment-fraud/
E.M. Smith’s look at the data biases introduced from the thermometer drops
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/assume-a-spherical-cow-therefore-all-steaks-are-round/
What the plants are saying about climate change in the USA:
http://www.sturmsoft.com/climate/suckling_mitchell_2000_fig2_3.gif
Oh, and don’t forget the The Goat Ate The Data or was that My dog Ate my Homework?
Mark:
Your post at September 30, 2013 at 9:18 pm says in total
Sorry, Mark, but it seems you have “missed the major motivation of the IPCC” for “moving the goal posts”. It is much, much more serious than stealing money for a mere 15 years.
I explained the reason and its seriousness in my post at September 30, 2013 at 6:14 am and this link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/to-the-ipcc-forget-about-30-years/#comment-1431752
Richard
barry says:
“There is no longer any doubt the world has warmed over the last 30, 50 or a hundred years…”
There never was any doubt on the part of skeptics. There is also no doubt that the warming is natural; the planet’s recovery from the LIA. The doubt was always on the part of alarmists, who believe that Mann’s Hokey Stick shaft showed no significant temperature change for hundreds of years. Ridiculous. But that is what Mann and his acolytes believe [or expect the public to believe].
The planet has been naturally warming since the Little Ice Age. Why try to deny it? Skeptics know better. Come join us.
Also, Hansen was wrong. You cannot accept that fact, but there is irrefutable evidence that Hansen was wrong. Why you would cite Hansen as an authority on anything climate related is a complete mystery. If Hansen is the best you can do, it is no wonder you’ve lost the debate.
barry:
Your post at September 30, 2013 at 9:29 pm is ridiculous spin.
Are you really trying to pretend you have been duped into thinking IPCC Reports are scientific documents?
All IPCC Reports are purely political documents that use scientific information as ‘window dressing’. This “Role” of the IPCC is openly stated by the IPCC in its “Principles”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
The IPCC is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
Richard
From barry on October 1, 2013 at 12:30 am:
Please try to keep up on the recent research:
The historical sea temperature record is so sparse and poor it cannot be conclusively said to show global warming. Provide evidence if you believe otherwise.
The land temperature datasets have poor spatial coverage and globally the quality of data is very poor. There is more than a little “inspired guesswork” in the pretensions of creating a usable global dataset, especially in creating a “global average temperature”.
So for about 70% of the globe you really can’t show there was global warming.
Of the remaining 30%, only a little has usable acceptably-accurate historical records, namely the contiguous US, and records like the CET. That’s about 2% of the surface area.
And after basing claims of many decades of “global warming” on such a small real percentage of surface area, with those surface datasets notably “tweaked” to show more warming, the trees are saying the “global” warming wasn’t in major chunks of Europe.
Warming since the Little Ice Age, yes. But as the less-manipulated data shows the “recent” highs were really just matching the highs seen around the 1930’s, I’m wondering if there has effectively been ANY net warming over the last 80 years, let alone how much of any warming since the start of the 20th century is truly “Global”, at even a lowly majority (50% or greater) of the surface area.
As Willis Eschenbach has shown how the tropics are self-regulating and thus highly resistant to warming, you don’t have much of the globe left to substantiate the 50%.
– – – – – – – –
Jquip,
Appreciate your contribution. Thanks.
Your assessment has reasonable approaches. The premise strategies of dissembler arguments did give me smile.
Such lists of statements given as an implied AGW theory vary significantly in sequence and in number of statements listed plus also vary in vocabulary.
New thought => A comment of yours to bit chillis is leading me to interesting possibilities:
A premise is often put forth by skeptics that the IPCC is a manifestation of ideology intentionally manipulating (premeditated duping of) the scientific field and the public on climate. Independent of what specific ideology is posited, any such skeptic premise begs the question why would the IPCC go through the mimicking of rational motions in its assessment processes if it (IPCC) did not have confidence in some conception of what science is?
One answer might be, from my perspective, that the IPCC has a honestly held conception of science that is based solely on usefulness for some kind of exterior / ulterior goal or purpose; that is, not on science defined as achieving demonstrated understanding of an independent (of man’s mind) reality. That kind of view of science can arguably be taken as the philosophy of pragmatism (Pierce,Dewey, James, Rorty, etc). If the IPCC can be shown to have that view, honestly without intent to dupe, then it suggests a new line of argument with the IPCC . . . showing philosophical pragmatism is invalid.
John
Barry says
Come join us
Henry says
Unbelievable. You have to be kidding. Where I have moved on from finding no evidence of AGW in the temp. records to now warning about the coming cold,
you just carry on feasting with the kings and queens on fake scientific evidence (follow the money)…..
Just remember: even though the temp. change maybe small, global cooling will be no pick-nick.
Ask around about the winter of 1940-1941 in western Europe when snow heaped up meters high?
barry says:
“…there are many more indicators other than surface temperatures corroborating.”
Actually, barry, global temperatures are hardly rising at all. ALL of the climate models were WRONG.
You and everyone else in the alarmist crowd all hang your hats on those falsified model predictions. If you were honest, you would now admit that since the models were ALL wrong, your catastrophic AGW conjecture has been falsified by the real world.
Will you be honest and admit that, barry? Or will you continue to try and sell us your CAGW propaganda?
The choice is yours, barry, and we are all watching you.
jquip , you say :
And I think that’s an accurate statement about laypeople. But that says nothing about what the scientific hypothesis, or hypotheses are; presuming any exist. Nor does it say anything about what is necessary in stating that an experiment has falsified a scientific hypothesis.
i say ,if the layperson definition of cAGW hypothesis is either not “a” nor “the” scientific hypothesis ,then could you please inform the billions of ordinary people like myself of the reason the worlds governments and industry have spent trillions of dollars in attempting to mitigate “no hypothesis”
again to my poorly educated mind ( i did manage to contribute something to improving life, in the actual technical development and manufacture post conception of industrial ceramic medical products,and all the monolithic ceramic pressure sensors used in many applications today, so whilst i can live with the poor education,i do realise i am ill prepared for the converstaion we are currently having and i may well not even be on the same page as yourself,if that is the case i apologise,though i believe we are indeed discussing semantics !) the “not a hypothesis” has been falsified by the observational records i have already mentioned,if i am incorrectly stating a/the hypothesis is falsified by observational fact ,when in fact it can only be falsified by experiment, my understanding of the cAGW hypothesis must be incorrect.
you also say :
It is my personal belief that the populace has been misinformed. And I assert that this has been done by dressing up rhetoric that is none of logical, empirically based, or scientific as science.
on this point we most certainly agree.
you then say :
If this is not your argument, but you wish to carry your water on the idea that the people have been ‘duped’ by the use of rhetoric that is contrary to science then I would ask you to explain why the preference should be to ‘dupe’ them in the same manner to a different conclusion. Or, as a separate question, duping them into an awareness of science so that scientific conclusion can follow thereafter.
[1] eg. The hypothesis must necessitate an outcome, and the experiment must succeed or fail on the necessitation only. Which says nothing about the illogical notion that a lack of failure demonstrates that the underlying metaphysical model is both complete and inarguably true.
indeed jquip,it is not. but now i think i have a feint grasp of what you getting at (though possibly not,i have read your reply at least 6 times in attempting to understand it,be assured that is solely down to my lack of understanding in general,as opposed to anything you have written !)
and i would suggest that i and possibly many others have had enough of being duped, and no matter what the reason,two wrongs never make a right,so to dupe anyone to concede either warmist or sceptical beliefs is wrong. genuine mistakes i can accept.the man that has never made a mistake has never made anything,but deliberate attempts (see IPCC ) at obfuscation by many of the warmist disposition lead me to believe the genuine mistakes by climate scientists , politicians and bureaucrats are few and far between in the journey of discovery that is attempting to understand how earth systems actually work.
my personal belief is that people like myself are drawn to the statements made by climate scientists,politicians and bureaucrats when they are of alarming tone.when the prophecies within those statements appear to be failing,indeed the main point of temperature increase following the increase in atmospheric co2, we then want to know why ? this then leads us ,not to outlets championing what is,or was ,the mainstream outlook,but alternative sources that try and make sense of why and more importantly (to me) how.
am i being “duped” to follow science to a desired personal science based outcome in relation to belief of either “side” of the debate ? i do not think so.the main tenets of my scepticism are based on the observations not supporting the “not a hypothesis” of cAGW.
again,as a layperson, for a hypothesis to be a hypothesis,it must be falsifiable. the hypothesis that increased levels of co2 result in a rise of temperature ,even of unquantified amount,has indeed been falsified. i do understand the point you make
jquip : that a lack of failure demonstrates that the underlying metaphysical model is both complete and inarguably true.
but to me,it makes it possible it is true,whereas absolute failure,in the case of no warming for a decade and a half makes it impossible.
thank you for making me think,thinking is always an enjoyable experience,apologies if i have completely missed the points you have attempted to help me understand, but i can promise you i have given as best a reply as i can mentally muster, the lack of education beyond “o” level unfortunately means i am ill prepared for certain discussion topics. i would like to listen to a conversation on this subject between you,richard s courtney and john whitman.i believe it would highly entertaining and enlightening.
having said all that,i still believe we are discussing semantics,and god only knows,if there is one subject that could do with less semantics being discussed,it surely must be climate science !
ps,richard s courtney,it would seem it did not 🙂
bit chilly:
Your PS at October 1, 2013 at 11:31 am acknowledges that I foresaw that semantic bollocks threatened to destroy this thread. There is a triumvrate (whom I suggested isolate them selves on an open thread) who enjoy this kind of pointless nonsense (possibly as a method for destroying rational discussion).
In probably forlorn hope of stopping the nonsense, I will iterate that the AGW-hypothesis is well-known and it is as I stated it above at September 30, 2013 at 12:41 pm; i.e.
The AGW hypothesis is the idea that anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) notably CO2 will enhance the radiative greenhouse effect (GE) of the Earth to raise global temperature in a manner which will provide risk of harmful global warming (GW).
This definition of the AGW-hypothesis is not disputed by anybody as far as I am aware, and I note that nobody has disputed it in this thread. But some claim it has to be written in words, well I WROTE IT IN WORDS so that is fulfilled. Furthermore, as I said, it is also written as computer code in the climate models.
The definition has a long provenance and originates from 1896 in this
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
All claims to the contrary are pure bollocks. They have as much meaning and as much purpose as claims that the IPCC doesn’t make predictions, and – being equally false – similarly waste space by their ‘discussion’.
There is nothing to discuss about the matter. But there are semantic quibblers who post reams of sophistry in attempt to pretend that they alone understand something nobody else does. They clearly do this as a method to proclaim they have some importance. And they get upset when I tell them to go elsewhere to spout their nonsense.
Richard
Kev-in-Uk says:
This simple fact shoots down the majority of AGW scientific basis simply because we cannot (and will likely never be able to) discern a human signal from the natural variability without many many decades of very good data.
The current data may well be inadequate this (even if you were to eliminate “adjustments” , “homogenization”, even some which is actually “fiction”). With the likely “noise” being much greater than any possible “signal”.
richard s courtney ,i have to admit jquip,s posts really puzzled me.being a relative newcomer to the cAGW scepticism (my previous acceptance that global warming was occurring was based purely on what i had been told by the MSM) i appreciate i am unaware of the various recurring debates/discussions/arguments etc,so all are new and worth thinking about from my own personal perspective.
the most refreshing aspect of WUWT to my mind,is the wide and varied backgrounds of the contributors,and the most striking aspect is that rather than attempt to baffle joe public (ie ,me ) with bullshit,the vast majority of the knowledgeable and well educated contributors take the time to structure their writings so as to be relatively easy to understand. this is greatly appreciated by myself,and no doubt many others.
looking at posts from jquip on other topics it would appear that possibly theorising about the “not a hypothesis ” may be of particular interest ,as all the other posts from jquip i have seen were relatively easy to understand.
you are one of the many contributors along with the host that contributes meaningful dialogue,in a way that cuts through the obfuscation and gets right to the point in question. i like people that call a spade, a spade instead of a terra firma resituating implement.
for that,to you and many others like you i will be eternally grateful ,i suspect in the long term a great many people will be grateful .
in future ,when i someone advises i am taking part in an off topic discussion on semantics,i will pay more heed to that advice.
barry says:
“There is no longer any doubt the world has warmed over the last 30, 50 or a hundred years…”
Did you think I was replying to no one? Let me quote them.
And after your post others chimed in similarly.
kadaka –
HenryP –
(HenryP finds no evidence of global warming, never mind AGW – I’m familiar with his ‘work’)
You even contradict your own post to me.
dbstealy –
You produce a strange graph purporting a flat trend since 1880.
So, contrary to your reassurance, there are still contrarians who refuse to take on the results of even other skeptics who have taken all the data and crunched the numbers. You can see the classic cherry-pick with kadaka’s reference to highly local data, for example. That sort of selective analysis has being going on for years.
Oh, more than that. There has been and still is absolute conviction from some skeptics that the average temperature of the Earth’s surface has not risen for the last 30, 50 or a hundred years. For some, they will change their opinion depending on who they’re talking to, or how badly they need to ‘win’ an argument, or whatever bugbear drives them to hold mutually contradictory views at different times.
These types will never, ever, ever crunch the full data sets, raw or otherwise, nor will they reference the work of people who have – even the skeptical number crunchers. They’ll just link a graph, or cherry-pick some locale, or do poor work on a handful of data and stake their claim.
First, the work done presented at ‘skeptic’ blogs.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/thermal-hammer-part-deux/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/global-gridded-ghcn-trend-by-seasonal-offset-anomaly-matching/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-landocean-reconstructions/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/romans-temperature-reconstruction-higher-trends-than-hadcrut/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/new-work-on-the-recent-warming-of-northern-hemispheric-land-areas/
not to mention a post on this very site
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/calculating-global-temperature/
and others
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/ghcn-processor-10.html
http://treesfortheforest.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/better-late-than-never/
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/comparison-of-ghcn-results.html
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/global-landocean-gsod-and-ghcn-data.html
There is much more like this comparing raw and adjusted data, comparing global land to global ocean, to global urban, to global rural, to global airports, station dropout analyses, from the last 30 years or so to the full instrumental record, and even with non-GHCN data (GSOD).
They all come up with pretty much the same results.
It’s something I’ve followed closely for years, and can provide links to all of the above comparisons.
These people actually did “get up off their hinds and exert the effort to find out for themselves”, as wayne exorted. Please point out another analysis as comprehensive that comes up with a different result – ie, no cherry-picked locales, lame graphs, small data set, or naive methodology. Let’s see some actual work done. Otherwise I’m not interested.
barry,
Your simpleton arguments are so easy to deconstruct that if I were you, I would hide out for a few weeks, and hope everyone forgets my nonsense… if I were you.
You refer to this chart as a “strange graph”. But the only thing strange about it is its provenance: GISS. Otherwise, you are quite strange for questioning it, because it is fact-based.
And when I write “hardly rising”, only a dope would mis-read that as “not rising”. If that’s the best you can do, it’s no wonder your crazy alarmist position is so easy to debunk. It is a fact that not one model was correct in its global warming prediction. Why should anyone pay attention to models that are always wrong?
Your whole argument is a strawman fallacy: you cut and paste up what other wrote, then you reply to me as if they are my arguments. Everyone on this board has their opinions, and we are not responsible for anything, other than what we write ourselves.
Let me remind folks here that “barry” is an uneducated lay person with an opinion — but with no CV, or degree in the hard sciences. We have been over all this before: if I am wrong, post your CV. Prove me wrong. In reality, your comments show that you do nothing but cut ‘n’ paste talking points, and look for minor and insignificant “gotchas”, which mean nothing.
The reality is that the IPCC is flat wrong. They have never produced any measurable, testable scientific evidence proving that human CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. Just because you want to believe their nonsense does not constitute scientific evidence.
Finally, wake me when you can falsify my oft-repeated, testable hypothesis:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
Until then, you got nothin’…
As predicted, db, you reference no substantive work, just relink to your graph, for which the provenance is…. suyts.files.wordpress, not GISS. Please link to the work behind the graph. Aren’t skeptics interested in replicability anymore?
Nope, you said that no skeptic doubts the world has warmed and I provided examples that disprove your ‘rule’. I’m glad you’ve made your view clearer on whether the globe has warmed or not. wayne, kadaka and HenryP, who doubt that the world has warmed, can now take it up with you if they wish.
barry says
You (Henry) even contradict your own post to me.
Henry says
nothing contradictory here…..
Namely, it has been warming globally, naturally,
and now it has started cooling globally, naturally
apart from my ‘work” which you allege is trash,
you can see that also nicely here:
(4 major data sets, that I did not compile myself)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
Only an ostrich puts his head in the ground if he does not want to see reality.
That is the animal I compare you with, if, like the IPCC, you still claim that it will continue to get warmer.
Henry,
What kind of animal attributes invented claims to other people? You would more easily find quotes from people like Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Snr and Anthony Watts stating that increased levels of CO2 should warm the world in the long-term. You can refer to these skeptics and completely ignore the IPCC, if you like. But I haven’t gone that far here.
It seems you have let go of the idea that there is no warming, based on your early work of a handful of weather stations. Kudos. I will no longer attribute that position to you. wayne and kadaka may now take up the issue with dbstealy and yourself if they care to. Seems doubtful, though.
Correction, should be ‘has been’ no warming for the last 30, 50 or a hundred years. I note your position on ‘cooling’, Henry, though the data sets indicate a slow-down or haiatus for periods that approach statistical significance. 10 years of data is mainly a reflection of weather, not climate trends. I doubt there’s any point arguing about it with you, though. But if you think any old time period is good enough, it has been warming again since 2008.
RSS shows a trend of 0.2C/decade, and UAH, the skeptics’ choice, shows a trend of 0.3C/decade!
It’s only 5 years, but what difference does it make if it’s 15, 20, 10, 5 or 3 years, eh?
Which brings us back, somehwat obliquely, to the topic of this thread.
Henry,
I noticed that you ommitted the UAH data from your analysis, even while including the other satellite-based data set, RSS. Curious, I plotted the your time period values for UAH. Lo and behold, it’s the only data set to show a slight warming for the period you state it’s been cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/uah/from:1987/to:2014
I’m sure you have excellent reasons for sidelining the data set that is preferred by most skeptics. Could you explain, please?
@barry
I did explain this in point 4) of my previous post. I can read your mind?
Can somebody clarify the position of UAH ie that it is as I explained ie not globally representative?
barry says
1) based on your early work of a handful of weather stations.
2) You would more easily find quotes from people like Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Snr and Anthony Watts stating that increased levels of CO2 should warm the world in the long-term.
3) But if you think any old time period is good enough, it has been warming again since 2008.
4) UAH, the skeptics’ choice, shows a trend of 0.3C/decade!
henry says
1) A handful? 47 weather stations is just a handful?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
2) As far as I know I have never personally argued with them about more CO2 causing more warming but if I had, then they must show me the balance sheet same as I asked you, here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
that would prove to me that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming rather than cooling.
3) The first thing you should know if you really want to study climate science is that the irradiance varies over one solar cycle; therefore, to chose half a cycle would give you a complete wrong impression…..
This is why I chose not 10 years but 11 years. (2013-2002=11). That is equivalent time of one solar cycle. In addition, you should know that real climate scientists must consider the fact that there are more solar cycles. I stumbled upon one myself, here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
[note: It seems to me this 88 year solar/weather cycle was already calculated from COSMOGENIC ISOTOPES as related in this study: Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E. Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390]
Now look back at the global record and you will find that it generally started warming from around 1950, ignoring short spells of cooling in between. Hence, we know that from 2000 to 2040 it will be generally cooling.
Before 1940 the global temp record is murky, to say the least, because of various reasons.
(no calibrated thermometers, poor global representation, missing data when workers went on leave, etc.)
4) I believe UAH has issues with calibration; it does not agree with my own data set from 2000 but neither does it agree with any other data set. I also think that UAH only measures between plus 30 and minus 30 latitude, which could give a wrong impression about the global cooling taking place, especially if you are looking at average temps.
Predictably, global cooling would cause a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average.When water condenses, large amounts of warmth are released……
If a data set is not globally representative you have to be careful….
ask me.
Keep your eyes on maximum temperatures and soon they will open up. And you feel liberated.
I can drive a big truck now and take my dogs with me without having to feel guilty.
Isn’t that great? I think that is worth something. I was worth all my work and all the trouble finding out things for myself.
If I were you, I would check out my final report on this:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/