RSS Reaches Santer's 17 Years

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Image Credit: WoodForTrees.org

Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts

RSS stands for Remote Sensing Systems, which is a satellite temperature data set similar to the University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) dataset that John Christy and Roy Spencer manage. Information about RSS can be found at here and the data set can be found here.

The plot of the number on the left column from November 1, 1996 to October 31, 2013 can be found in the graph at the head of his article and here. When the “Raw data” is clicked, we see that for 204 months, the slope is = -0.000122111 per year. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the focus is not on the magnitude of the negative number since this number is zero for all intents and purposes. The only thing that is noteworthy is that the slope is not positive.

And of course, 204 months is equal to 17 years. In the “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale” Benjamin Santer et al. stated that:

“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong, but in plain English, my interpretation of this statement is as follows:

“There is a lot of noise in the climate system and it is quite possible that the noise can mask the effects of man-made carbon dioxide for a period of time. However if the slope is zero for 17 years, then we cannot blame noise any more but we have to face the facts that we humans do not affect the climate to any great extent.”

Is that reasonably accurate interpretation?

Richard Courtney offered a very interesting perspective in a comment previously:

“The Santer statement says that a period of at least 17 years is needed to see an anthropogenic effect. It is a political statement because “at least 17 years” could be any length of time longer than 17 years. It is not a scientific statement because it is not falsifiable.

However, if the Santer statement is claimed to be a scientific statement then any period longer than 17 years would indicate an anthropogenic effect. So, a 17-year period of no discernible global warming would indicate no anthropogenic global warming.

In my opinion, Santer made a political statement so it should be answered with a political response: i.e. it should be insisted that he said 17 years of no global warming means no anthropogenic global warming because any anthropogenic effect would have been observed.

Santer made his petard and he should be hoisted on it.”

Some may wonder why I am ignoring UAH. In response, I would just say that while UAH does not have a slope of 0 over the last 17 years, within the error bars of statistical significance, it is indeed possible for UAH to have a slope of 0 for this period of time. Nick Stokes’ Trend Viewer page shows: “CI from -0.384 to 2.353“. So while a larger trend cannot be ruled out, a slope of 0 is certainly possible according to climate science criteria for statistical significance.

You may be interested in how the other data sets compare over this same 17 year period. My recent post Statistical Significances – How Long Is “The Pause”? (Now Includes September Data) offers an in depth analysis and below is the plot for five other data sets. In addition to the RSS plot using all points for RSS and its slope line, I have just drawn the slope lines for the other five and offset them so they all start at the point where RSS starts in November 1996.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

It is interesting to note that over this same 17 year period, the largest slope is that of UAH with 0.009/year or less than 1 degree C/century. That is certainly nothing to be alarmed about.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I hate to say this, but you have missed something in Santer’s belief system that he obviously expected to be taken for granted. When Santer wrote:
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
He intended this corollary to be taken for granted: “Of course that only applies to warming, but if we measure no changes at all for 17 years then it might take 25 or 50 or 100 years to see the Global Warming, because it’s tricky that way, and it hides in all the spooky places like a Halloween goblin – and just when you think it’s gone for good it’ll jump out of the Deep Ocean or something and shout “BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!”

Bloke down the pub

Warmists must be well qualified as groundsmen considering the number of times they’ve moved the goalposts.

Steve from Rockwood

I interpret the “at least 17 years” statement differently. It is meaningless to look at temperature changes of shorter duration because of natural variability. Only after that period of time will the human effect be measurable. This is a slow motion fight that “denialists” are going to win one month at a time. We only had to wait 17 years. Problem is, living in a cold climate, I didn’t really want to be on the winning team.

oppti

WoodForTrees have periods with negative trends during other long periods.
1944-1978 as an example-over 30 years.

Doug

Refuting CAGW and the growth of a plague of locusts both require 17 years.

Frank K.

So, let’s recap the year in climate so far, shall we?
* The Nenana, Alaska “ice out” date breaks the old record.
* Arctic minimum sea ice extent rebounds sharply from 2012 lows.
* Antarctic maximum sea ice extent sets new records.
* Tornado activity to date is near record lows.
* The hurricane season in the Atlantic basin has been (and probably will end up being) a dud.
* We have now reached 17 years with zero trend in “global temperature”.
Others can add to the list…

ConfusedPhoton

The goal posts will be moved soon and we will see that we need 25-30 years of non warming.
It is a bit like the timing of the end of the world madmen, everytime we reach it some excuse is used and a new date is given.
Do not make the mistake that Climate ” Science” has anything to do with real science!

Does this mean that taxes on fuel and subsidies on wind and solar power will go?
I doubt it, no doubt “it will be the wrong 17 years”, or “the models are now predicting this lack of warming, because the heat is going into the ocean” (regardless of the fact that the atmosphere has to heat up first before the seas can).
As Bloke Down the Pub states, they will move the goalposts again by making up some total c**p about the “travesty” that they don’t know what has happened to the missing heat. If it helps I can tell them that heat and temperature are not synonymous; the same as climate and weather in fact!

oppti says:
November 4, 2013 at 6:51 am

WoodForTrees have periods with negative trends during other long periods.
1944-1978 as an example-over 30 years.

This implies faith in the accuracy of the ground (and ocean) record.
The significance of the RSS records is that it covers very nearly the entire planet with a consistent measure.

JimH

Personally I’m waiting (hopefully) for the 20 year mark. Because then the 1980-2000 (roughly speaking) rise will be no longer than the 2000-2020 level/cooling period. I don’t think AGW will survive that. We’re nearly three quarters of the way there, as the years tick by the warmists will be getting more and more worried. I think post 2015 the cracks will really begin to show as more rats leave the sinking ship.

So, what the consensus (yerch) of the length of warming, 1978-1998? Once the length of the pause equals the length of warming (I don’t mind a little overlap), it will be harder for people to claim X years is too short without putting doubt on the the warming period being long enough to be significant.

oppti

Ric Werme 7:00
Ok so what is the RSS reading for the period 1944-1978?
Climate has long time periodicity, something CO2 has not changed completely!

michael hart

Of course if we wait long enough it will go up again. Or down. In fact, if we wait long enough it will probably dice carrots.

Steve from Rockwood is mostly right, but I object to the idea that 17 years would “always and forever” be long enough to see thru the varibilities that may occur. Even though that period length may be long enough to cover the past occurances, that doesn’t mean it woud cover future situations. There is no limit that I know of to the extent of natural variability possible. There is a more important issue by far in all this : how much anthropogenic warming are we talking about? Whether or not anthropogenic warming is statistically significantly greater than zero (which is the question answered by statistical significance tests) has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of whether the warming is indeed significant, or worrisome. One should instead statistically evaluate the data to answer whether one can be certain that warming greater than some agreed to magnitude is occurring. A warming of 2/10ths degrees per century might very well be shown to be statistically significant (which it is). But it’s not significant in any other way. “Statistical significance” is by far the most misunderstood scientific term. No one seems to know what it actually represents

Brian

“Is that reasonably accurate interpretation?”
Werner,
Yes. Although Santer doesn’t say it directly, Figures 4 and 6 make clear what he means. In an ensemble of model runs, over a period of 17 years, only 2.5% of models have a negative trend. As seen in Figure 6a, over 14 years only 5% of model runs have a negative trend. And as seen in Figure 4b, over 20 years only about 0.5% of model runs have a negative trend. Since the 95% confidence interval determines statistical significance, one can say that a non-positive trend over 17 years or longer would imply that the models are wrong. They must either have the wrong trend or they must have a too-low variability. If scientists are being honest, they must acknowledge and confront this discrepancy, though they can try to save the CAGW claims by arguing that the variability, not the trend, is what’s wrong.


Is that reasonably accurate interpretation?
no.
and courtney botches it as well.

Alan the Brit

As people have already noted, the goalpost shifting will soon begin, with warmists ready with a veritable bank of excuses as to why the Earth hasn’t warmed or indeed started to cool!!!! Under no circumstances could they be wrong!

DirkH

oppti says:
November 4, 2013 at 6:51 am
“WoodForTrees have periods with negative trends during other long periods.
1944-1978 as an example-over 30 years.”
So the rise of CO2 from 1960 to 1978 had no effect as well?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2
That’s great! We can dump the doubly falsified CO2AGW theory! Rejoyce! Thermageddon ain’t gonna happen! Dance in the streets, warmists! You’re saved!
As to us skeptics; we didn’t worry about it anyway so we’ll just continue working.

richardscourtney

Steven Mosher:
At November 4, 2013 at 7:35 am your post says in total


Is that reasonably accurate interpretation?
no.
and courtney botches it as well.

Please explain how I have botched it.
I await your explanation in awe and anticipation of your wisdom.
Richard

Marcos

Does anyone know how many years of warming there had been by 1984 when Hansen started saying the world was going to burn up and the West Side Hwy in NYC would be under water? Had it been at least 17 years?

MinB

Steve Mosher, what is the significance, if any, of 17 years without warming wrt Santers statement? (This is not a provocative question, I sincerely want to know how you interpret this.)

Chris R.

To oppti:
You wrote:

WoodForTrees have periods with negative trends during other long periods.
1944-1978 as an example-over 30 years.

However, the UN IPCC has put forth the statement that man-made greenhouse
gas emissions began to dominate the Earth’s climate beginning in 1976. So
the earlier periods of negative slope are less relevant.

mkelly

From: Phil Jones [p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: Thu 07/05/2009 15:17
to: “Lockwood, M (Mike)”
Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. We’re really counting this from about 2004/5 and not 1998.
There will be a new version of HadCRUT3 (which we will call HadCRUT4!)
################
The goal post have already begun to move.

JohnWho

Steven Mosher says:
November 4, 2013 at 7:35 am

Is that reasonably accurate interpretation?
no.
and courtney botches it as well.

Let me try:
What Santer meant was that we must wait to see what the 17 year data shows and then we can determine whether the data means anything meaningful or not.
If it shows warming, it is meaningful, but if it shows either flat temps or any level of cooling, then we must investigate further.
It appears he rejected Nancy Pelosi’s suggestion – “We must analyze the data before we see it.”
🙂

Karl

@ andrewmharding
Why should the subsidies go? Nuclear power has been subsidized by an order of magnitude or more based on real dollars; for development of the basic tecnology, for construction of power stations, and development of fuel. Without conversion of weapons stockpiles for fuel, or a transition to thorium reactors, there is not enough U3O8 production capacity to support the expansion of Nuclear power as a significant contributor to electricity. There is barely enough to meet demand now. Approximately 68,000 tons of U3O8 is needed in 2013 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements/ (that is a nuclear industry site) — production worldwide – 58,000 tons http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/Uranium-production-figures/
That is a 16% shortfall — just to maintain the current reactor force.
Oil demand exceeds supply now by several hundred thousand barrels a day. The production shortfall is projected to be a few million barrels per day by Q4 2014. http://omrpublic.iea.org/
Oil is not viable in the very near term. Nuclear is not viable for at least a decade, yet rooftop solar can be done in a month, and a wind farm can be sited and producing in a year or 2.

Richard C., you really think you’re going to get a rational explanation???
The only one you’ll be getting is that made famous by Ring Lardner in his “Stories and Other Writings”, and I quote:
“‘Shut Up!’ he explained.”

highflight56433

My contention has been that if we dilute the atmosphere’s water vapor with CO2, it will have a cooling effect. There is more correlation to this per the inter-glacial periods.
Also, temperature readings at airports are for the purposes of aircraft performance, not climate monitoring. My contention (lots of contentions) is not to use any airport weather station data. They are heat islands.
Another contention is the sun drives our climate followed by “other stuff.”

JohnWho

oppti says:
November 4, 2013 at 7:15 am
Ric Werme 7:00
Ok so what is the RSS reading for the period 1944-1978?
Climate has long time periodicity, something CO2 has not changed completely!

I don’t believe the RSS satellites were reporting temps before they were launched.
I could be wrong.

richardscourtney

Col Mosby:
In your post at November 4, 2013 at 7:22 am you say

I object to the idea that 17 years would “always and forever” be long enough to see thru the varibilities that may occur. Even though that period length may be long enough to cover the past occurances, that doesn’t mean it woud cover future situations. There is no limit that I know of to the extent of natural variability possible.

With respect, I point out that your comment is true and accurate but it misses the point.
It is claimed that anthropogenic (i.e. caused by human activity) global warming (AGW) is now so large that it overwhelms the natural climate variability of the Holocene. It does not matter if cooling happened in the past when the anthropogenic effects were less: AGW is now so large that lack of warming is improbable.
Indeed, Santer et al. claimed

Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

As the above essay reports, I can see two possible interpretations of that. However, Mosher says my interpretations “botches it” and we all await his sure to be cogent explanation of that. In the absence of his explanation, I will consider the two possible meanings of the claim I have identified in the light of the achieved 17 years with lack of identifiable global warming.
Either
(a) Santer et al. made a political statement that has no meaning
or
(b) AGW is shown to not have a magnitude sufficient for it to become discernible according to the understandings of AGW reported by Santer et al. and evinced by their climate models.
Richard

rgbatduke

This (17 years) is a non-event, just as 15 and 16 years were non-events. Non-events do not make headlines. Other non-events of the year are one of the fewest numbers of tornadoes (especially when corrected for under-reporting in the radar-free past) in at least the recent past of not the remote past, the lowest number of Atlantic hurricanes since I was 2 years old (I’m 58), the continuation of the longest stretch in recorded history without a category 3 or higher hurricane making landfall in the US (in fact, I don’t recall there being a category 3 hurricane in the North Atlantic this year, although one of the ones that spun out far from land might have gotten there for a few hours).
We (the world) didn’t have an unusual number of floods, we don’t seem to have any major droughts going on, total polar ice is unremarkable, arctic ice bottomed out well within the tolerances slowly being established by its absurdly short baseline, antarctic ice set a maximum record (but just barely, hardly newsworthy) in ITS absurdly short baseline, the LTT temperatures were downright boring, and in spite of the absurdly large spikes in GASTA in GISS vs HADCRUT4 on a so-called “temperature anomaly” relative to a GAST baseline nobody can measure to within a whole degree centigrade, neither one of them did more than bounce around in near-neutral, however much the “trend” in GISS is amplified every second or third month by its extra-high endpoint.
The US spent months of the summer setting cold temperature records, but still, aside from making the summer remarkably pleasant in an anecdotal sort of way (the kind you tell your grandchildren when they experience a more extreme weather, “Eh, sonny, I remember the summer of ’13, aye, that was a good one, gentle as a virgin’s kiss outdoors it was…”) it was unremarked on at the time.
Let’s face it. The climate has never been more boring. Even the weather blogs trying to toe the party line and promote public panic — I mean “awareness” — of global warming are reduced to reporting one of GISS’s excessive spikes as being “the fourth warmest September on record” while quietly neglecting the fact that in HADCRUT4, RSS and UAH it was nothing of the sort and while even more quietly neglecting the fact that if one goes back a few months the report might have been that June was the fourth coldest in 20 years. Reduced to reporting a carefully cherrypicked fourth warmest event? Ho hum.
So, good luck in getting any news agency to report reaching 17 years in any or all of the indices — this isn’t news, it is anti-news. It is olds. It is boring.
It is also irrelevant. If GASTA stubbornly refuses to rise for five more years, stretching the interval out to 20 to 22 years in a way that nobody can ignore, does this really disprove GW, AGW, or CAGW? It does not. The only thing that will disprove GW or CGW is reaching 2100 without a climate catastrophe and without significantly more warming or with net cooling. A demonstrated total climate sensitivity of zero beats all predictions or argument. The “A”(nthropogenic) part is actually easier to prove or disprove in a contingent sort of way, although it will probably take decades to do so. Contingent because of there is no observed GW at all, AGW seems difficult to prove. But since we are in the part of the periodic climate cycle observed over the last 150 years where the climate remains neutral to cools around an overall warming trend, we might well see neutral to very slow warming even if AGW is correct, if there is an anthropogenic component to the long term trend and oscillation that we can observe but not really explain over the last 150 years.
The one thing the 33 years of satellite measurements and increasingly precise surface temperature measurements have been able to prove is the one thing that the 17 year interval is truly relevant to. The GCMs used to predict CAGW suck. The GCMs in CIMP5 that contribute to the conclusions of AR5 are almost without exception terrible predictors of the Earth’s actual climate.
This conclusion is unavoidable. Even if they all cannot be rejected at the “95% confidence level”, almost none of them are close to predicting even GASTA alone, let alone RSS/UAH, global rainfall, frequency and violence of storms, etc. As we leave 2013’s hurricane season behind with almost no chance for an Atlantic storm this year, which GCM predicted the paucity of hurricanes and tornadoes over the last few years? Where are the droughts and floods? Which GCMs actually got the temperature distribution right (when they didn’t get the average or average anomaly right, the answer is almost certainly “none of them”)?
We are told “Catastrophic warming is coming, it is just around the corner”. We ask why and without exception we are told “Because the 30 or more GCMs we carefully built in the 1990’s in response to the CAGW threat and normalized with the warming data from the 70’s and 80’s (not to mention Hansen’s initial model report from the late 1980’s) all say so. We then quite reasonably ask what they predicted for the last 20 years, and of course we can see that they all did indeed predict shockingly rapid warming. We then compare this to what actually happened, which is almost no warming over the last 20 years — a single warming pulse associated with the 1997/1998 ENSO event and then neutral ever since. We note that the warmest of the models that are still included in the CIMP5 data because nobody ever rejects a model just because it doesn’t work are a whopping 0.5 to 0.6C warmer than reality — they are the models with a total sensitivity of 5 or 6 C by 2100, so they have to warm at 0.5C a decade to get there.
This really is shocking. Shockingly bad science, shockingly dishonest political manipulation of policy makers on the part of scientists who participated in the creation of AR5 and permitted their names to give the report its weight.
As I’ve pointed out once and will point out again, by failing to be honest in AR5, by removing words that expressed honest doubt from the earlier draft and redrawing the figure to obscure the GCM failure, the IPCC has now gone far out on a limb that will end the career of many scientists and politicians before AR6 if there is no significant warming by that time. Not only significant warming, but a resumption of some sort of regular upslope to GASTA. Even if there is another ENSO-related burst of warming (which I’m sure is what they are hoping for) if it is only 0.2 C — and it is difficult to imagine that it could be much more given evidence from the past — it will barely suffice to restore the warming trend to 0.1 C/decade give or take a hair, roughly half of the lowest estimates of climate sensitivity. And they run the very real risk of getting to 2020 with GASTA basically the same as it was in 2000.
At that time, the hottest GCMs are going to be almost a full degree C too hot compared to reality. The people who contribute to the IPCC reports aren’t fools — most of them know perfectly well that the high sensitivity models are trash at this point, and they know equally well that it will no longer be possible to conceal this fact even from ignorant politicians by 2000 if there is no statistically significant warming by that time. Because it is an open secret that there was a cover-up that deliberately concealed this, effectively lying to policy makers, there will be a public scandal. Heads will roll.
The only way the IPCC can possibly avoid this as it proceeds is to issue a correction to AR5. Go back in and eliminate the GCMs with absurdly high sensitivity, the ones that obviously fail a hypothesis test when compared to the actual climate record. Personally I would advise eliminating at a much more generous level than 95% — a complete idiot with experience in computational modeling could go into these models and figure out what is wrong, given an additional 16 years of data — simply retune the models until they can manage both the warming of the late 20th century AND the warming hiatus since. Models for which no tuning can reproduce the actual past go into the dustbin, period — ones that can manage it will all have a vastly lowered climate sensitivity and will produce a much larger fraction of warming from “natural” variability, and less from CO_2. Finally, insist that all models use common numbers for things like CO_2 and aerosol contributions instead of individually tuning the largely cancelling contributions to reproduce an interpolated temperature change.
I’m guessing that over half of the participating models will simply go away at this point. They can then reconstruct figure 1.4 in the SPM, note the good news that even though the remaining models will all still predict more warming than actually occurred the warming that they project by 2100 will be between 0.5 and 1.5 C, not 2.5 C or more. This is almost precisely in line with what was observed in the 19th and 20th century without CO_2, and will grant a far larger role to natural variability (and hence a smaller one to CO_2).
Why should they do this, even though it is near-suicide to do it at this point? Because it is sure thing suicide not to do it. Because it is the right thing to do. Because they have a queasy feeling in their tum-tums every time they look at figure 1.4 in the AR5 SPM and realize that the dent that they made in the car isn’t going to go away and Dad is going to be even more pissed when he finds out if they lie about it. After all, everybody knows that the worst models in CIMP5 are wrong at this point. The people that wrote the models and ran the models, they know that their models are broken at this point. It’s not like the failure of a model is difficult to detect or something.
If it were “just science”, all of this would have been happening in the literature for some time anyway. People would jump all over models that fail, because in the usual realm of science there is little money on the line and because trial and error and try try again is the normal order of business and what keeps you getting paid. Not so in climate science. Here it is all political. Hundreds of billions of dollars and the directed energy of the entire global civilization ride on the numbers. Here there is a real risk of congressional hearings where a flinty-eyed committee chair grills you by showing you GCM curves selected from figure 1.4 of the AR5 SPM and asks you “Sir, at what point was it obvious to you that this curve was not a good predictor of the future climate?” Because if the answer was “2012” — and given the REMOVED TEXT from the earlier draft of AR5 everybody knows that it was 2012 at the latest — that’s contempt of congress right there, given that AR5 directs billions of dollars in federal research money and hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies and misdirected governmental energy at all levels from federal to state to local to personal.
We pay, pay, and pay again in the form of taxes, higher energy prices, neglect of competing services and goals — and what we pay pales to nothing compared to the terrible price paid by the third world for the amelioration of hypothetical CAGW. Millions of people die every year from respiratory diseases alone brought about because they are still cooking on animal dung and charcoal because coal burning power plants are now “unclean” and have artificially inflated price tags at every level.
If CAGW is a true hypothesis, them maybe — just maybe — it is worth sacrificing all of these people, most of them children under five, on the altar to expiate our carbon sins. But given this sort of ongoing catastrophe, this ongoing moral price we pay on the basis of the “projections” of the GCMs, how great is the obligation of the scientists who wrote AR5 towards “mere honesty”, to put down not their own beliefs but to put down the objective support for their beliefs given the data?
For some time the data has been sufficient to prove that the tools that claim the biggest, scariest AGW are simply incorrect, broken, in error, failed. Yet their predictions are still included in AR5 because without them, the “catastrophe” disappears and we are forced to rebalance the cost of gradual accommodation of the warming while continuing to civilize and raise the standard of living of the third world against the ongoing catastrophe of adopting measures that everybody knows will not prevent the catastrophe anyway (if the extreme models are correct) at the cost of a hundred million or more lives and unspeakable poverty, disease, and human misery perpetuated for decades along the way.
rgb

richardscourtney

rgbatduke:
re your excellent post at November 4, 2013 at 8:14 am.
SECONDED!
Richard

JohnWho

@rgbatduke
Request permission to repost your statement of November 4, 2013 at 8:14 am.
Thank you for taking the time to make such a meaningful post.

Karl

@ richardscourtney
you said:
“Millions of people die every year from respiratory diseases alone brought about because they are still cooking on animal dung and charcoal because coal burning power plants are now “unclean” and have artificially inflated price tags at every level.”
Please cite where this occurs. Environmental regulations limiting coal burning plants are primarily first world in nature. I am unaware of millions in the first world cooking with animal dung.
Secondly, without extensive scrubbing, coal plants are unclean. That is an unarguable scientific fact. Cadmium, sulfur, lead, mercury, and other metals as well as significant particulates that cause respiratory distress are present in significant quantities in coal plant exhaust.
All one need do is look at the smog from Chinese coal fired powerplants.

Frank K.

@rgbatduke
“The GCMs used to predict CAGW suck.”
…and here’s the prime example of BAD GCMs (but, perhaps, an outlier):
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
And the message posted forever but NEVER updated…
NOTE: we are updating the documentation – please excuse any out-of-date information. “
Total FAIL…

Frank K.

Karl says:
November 4, 2013 at 8:24 am
@ richardscourtney
you said:
“Millions of people die every year from respiratory diseases alone brought about because they are still cooking on animal dung and charcoal because coal burning power plants are now “unclean” and have artificially inflated price tags at every level.”
Please cite where this occurs. Environmental regulations limiting coal burning plants are primarily first world in nature. I am unaware of millions in the first world cooking with animal dung.

Karl – please visit Mumbai, India for a prime example. People living in the streets and cooking in tents. You will not be able to breathe the air there too long without difficulty…
(Note: I visited Mumbai in 2006, so things may have improved but I rather doubt it.)

Steve from Rockwood

As the 17 year interval grows the realization that CO2 rise does not guarantee temperature rise will settle in. This will not be a knife-edge “Da-Da” moment. Eventually the greater question will arise. “What makes the temperature of the Earth go up and down like that?” We don’t know. But we like to make the unknown known, even if we’re wrong.
As David Stockwell wrote here a few days ago, the dominant paradigm is being stressed and uncertainty is settling in.

rgbatduke says:
November 4, 2013 at 8:14 am: [ … ]
Excellent comment! Thanks for posting.

The goal of global warming climatology is not to provide a basis for communicating the global temperatures of the past but rather is to provide a basis for controlling the global temperatures of the future. There is an asymmetry between communications and control that is neglected by Dr. Santer’s argument regarding the anathropogenic signal and the associated noise. This is that the signal of communications propagates at a speed that is less than or equal to the speed of light. However, if there is a signal of control it must propagate at a speed that is greater than the speed of light. It follows from Einsteinian relativity that the latter “signal” does not exist.
While a signal cannot reach us from the future, Einsteinian relativity does not bar the possibility that information about the outcomes of events will reach us from the future. Currently, however, this is not a possibility for global warming climatology contains no such events. Contrary to Santer’s implict claim, then, global temperatures are currently uncontrollable.

Jeff Alberts

Great post, as always RGB.
One minor correction, I think it’s “CMIP5” as opposed to “CIMP5”.

Karl

@ richard
Sir, you are in error.
Mumbai India has 1 1000-2000MWe coal fired plant and 2 1000MWe> coal fired plants.
India also has a huge health burden from the dozens of other coal fired plants (over 100 total).
“In 2011-12, the emissions from coal-fired power plants, resulted in an estimated 80,000 to 115,000 premature deaths and more than 20.0 million asthma cases from exposure to total particulate pollution, which cost the public and the government an estimated 16,000 to 23,000 crores of Rupees (USD 3.2 to 4.6 billion). The largest impact of these emissions is felt over the states of Delhi, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Indo-Gangetic plain, and most of central-east India.”
http://www.urbanemissions.info/india-power-plants

Jim Cripwell

rgbatduke. Thank you for putting into a wonderful essay what I have been trying to say for months. But it is still only words. There are no actions that can “force” the scientific community to honestly debate the scientific basis for CAGW. The warmists simpy refuse to come to the table. I have discussed with Richard Courtney before as to what could actually be done. I have another suggestion for him.
The Astronomer Royal, and former President of the Royal Society, Lord Rees, recently gave a lecture. http://theconversation.com/astronomer-royal-on-science-environment-and-the-future-18162. In it he stated “. Doubling of CO2 in itself just causes 1.2 degrees warming. But the effect can be amplified by associated changes in water vapour and clouds.” This is the so called no-feedback climate sensitivity, which it is impossible to measure, and which has no meaning in physics. Might it be possible for someone like Christopher Monckton to challenge Lord Rees to debate this issue?

Karl

@richard
The coal plants you espoused are the cause of the miasma in the air in Mumbai — and India as a whole.

Daryl M

wws says:
November 4, 2013 at 6:20 am
I hate to say this, but you have missed something in Santer’s belief system that he obviously expected to be taken for granted. When Santer wrote:
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
He intended this corollary to be taken for granted: “Of course that only applies to warming, but if we measure no changes at all for 17 years then it might take 25 or 50 or 100 years to see the Global Warming, because it’s tricky that way, and it hides in all the spooky places like a Halloween goblin – and just when you think it’s gone for good it’ll jump out of the Deep Ocean or something and shout “BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!”
wws, you really put a smile on my face. Your post is priceless.

Jimbo

What I want to know is this, has Dr. Phil Jones been worried over the last 2 years?

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

Many climate scientists have expressed puzzlement about the standstill since over the years. Here are many temperature standstill quotes from 2005 right up to this summer. Among them are Jones, Hansen, Latif, Von Storch, the Met Office etc. Even the Warm economist Lord Stern has said “I note this last decade or so has been fairly flat,” (27 May 2013).
Q) How many more years of a temperature standstill do we have to wait before Warmist climate scientists hold a conference to declare the failure of the climate models used by the IPCC? Twenty? Twenty five? Thirty? It seems to me they will keep pushing the goalposts. They already did from 15 to 17 years. Expect a paper out soon pushing this ponzi scheme out to 2030.

Jimbo

Steven Mosher says:
November 4, 2013 at 7:35 am


Is that reasonably accurate interpretation?

no.
and courtney botches it as well.

Can you explain why not?
The models have failed, get over it.

Excellent post justthefactswuwt and rgbatduke.
I have no reason to doubt that any time period of “no warming” was simply a number to put off into the future any discussion of no warming and was never meant to be a measurement. That’s why the goalpost shifted. This is not science and has never really been science. How else could the failed predictions (Ehrlich’s ice age predictions, Hansen’s by 1988 prediction, ice free Arctic in 5 years predictions, etc) not result in any changes in thought by the elite climate scientists? It’s simply political science cloaked in the trappings of real science.
Undeterred by any facts or data, the dear leader is taking charge of all US climate policy with political groups. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/01/obama-creates-climate-change-task-force/
Neither facts, data nor time periods really matter, I’m afraid.

Jimbo

Chris R. says:
November 4, 2013 at 8:01 am
To oppti:
You wrote:
WoodForTrees have periods with negative trends during other long periods.
1944-1978 as an example-over 30 years.
However, the UN IPCC has put forth the statement that man-made greenhouse
gas emissions began to dominate the Earth’s climate beginning in 1976. So
the earlier periods of negative slope are less relevant.

I thought the IPCC said since 1950? Anyway even if you are right then that brings us back to the 17 year standstill of no domination?
Maybe I’m interpreting the following wrong, so my apologies.

IPCC – AR5
Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf
—————————————-
BBC – 27 September 2013
IPCC climate report: humans ‘dominant cause’ of warming
A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

Rex

The usual hit and run from Mosher.
Doesn’t do much for his credibility.

oppti

Jimbo 9:22
I dont know if IPCC has an explanation of the of the warming period 1905-1944? It has not been detected by satellite observations fore some reason.
Take a look!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1957/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1956/offset:0.4

Mike Lewis

@Karl – Not necessarily true because WHO says so, but definitely eye opening..
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/