Update: I’m making this a top “sticky post” for a couple of days, new stories will appear below this one.
UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore leaves a comment, see below.
Our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.
Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight
February 25, 2014
“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”
Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.
In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.
After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.
Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.
Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.
The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?
It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.
If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.
Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.
=================================================================
For that chapter, please see the PDF of his testimony, here: 22514HearingWitnessTestimonyMoore
=================================================================
UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore adds this comment:
Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow)
Submitted on 2014/02/27 at 2:53 pm
Nice to see so many positive and informative comments. It does pain me to see my Wikipedia entry cited. It was largely written by my enemies and it is very difficult to change as the editors don’t like people to write their own biographies. I trust Wiki only for non-political entries, Boron, for example.
For a factual account of the founding of Greenpeace see: http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/who-are-the-founders-of-greenpeace-2/
I have placed my testimony and the three supporting graphs/tables in Dropbox. They can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s65ljwrbuetrrny/PadEn_XjT7
OK Climate Warriors, I’t’s time for serious discussion to separate Fact from Opinion, Fact from Inference, and Fact from Prediction. One would hope the average Grade 9 mind could make the distinctions.
If you wish to read my full text on climate it is the last chapter of my book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” available on amazon.com as ebook or print here: http://goo.gl/E4M5op
I apologize if I’m not supposed to post like this, but comments like Walter K’s irk me.
Walter K. says:
February 27, 2014 at 6:49 pm
“Moore’s own self-promotion in direct marketing his book sales here is another telling ethical issue worthy of wise consideration, no matter how much he believes in his own omniscience of the very complex subject matter.”
Please.
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1yj3o7/science_ama_series_im_michael_e_mann/
I am author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and I have written two books including Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming, co-authored with my colleague Lee Kump, and more recently, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”, recently released in paperback with a foreword by Bill Nye “The Science Guy” (www.thehockeystick.net).
Replies to posters:
To darkenedgy:
I’ll just point out that I wrote an op-ed for the New York Times recently about precisely this question (“If You See Something, Say Something”)
To MoreBeansAndRice:
As I describe in my book (HSCW)
I recently wrote a Huffington Post commentary about this very issue. So I’ll just past the link here 🙂
To FluidFlow:
As I describe in HSCW,
To Planktic:
coincidentally enough, I recently published a commentary at Huffington Post that addresses this very issue:
To nopenictesla:
I did comment on this matter recently in a commentary at Huffington Post:
And I’ll have more to say in an upcoming article in a leading popular science magazine 😉
To supercore23:
I discuss this in my book HSCW in the section “It’s the Anomalies, Stupid!”
To nuclear_is_good:
I might add that I’ve actually highlighted, in my own recent work, the potential impact of a different possible problem with tree-ring data. See this RealClimate piece:
OK. Yes, I actually wrote a Huffington Piece on that particular topic 🙂 link here:
I actually wrote about this precise matter at Huffington Post last fall:
I will have something to say about it in the peer reviewed literature in due course. Will refrain from comment for now…
To EarthSciLife:
We know longer have to fear the “Serengeti Strategy” that I describe in HSCW…
To IceBean:
I discuss this quite a bit in my book, and allude to it in my recent NY Times op-ed
To The_Write_Stuff:
I tackled that question at length in this Huffington Post piece, so I’m going to take the liberty of just steering you there:
To pnewell:
That is really the point of my book (HSCW).
General to all:
Please check out my book (now out in paperback w/ a foreword by Bill Nye “The Science Guy”), The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars for a more in-depth discussion of many of the issues discussed today in this forum
Pease also consider following me on Facebook:
and on twitter
To UnfrozenCavemanMD:
I’ve actually commented on the matter of equilibrium climate sensitivity at some length recently. See these commentaries: (links deleted) and will have more to say about the matter in a fairly high profile venue a couple weeks from now. stay tuned!
To Metros98:
a topic I have published on, e.g.:
and many more here:
To toorroot:
Here are 15 articles I’ve authored/co-authored over the past decade looking at solar impacts on climate (all available here:
To recentlyunearthed:
I discuss all of this in my Penn State world campus course Meteo 469 (“From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming”):
You mean self-promotion like that? Is that an issue worthy of wise consideration?
HGW xx/7 says: February 28, 2014 at 9:39 am
“I hardly see how mentioning a heatwave that occurred in the past that is similar to the one experienced recently is cherry-picking. Its staying exactly within the bounds of your topic. Also, its not denying the recent one either, just as I can’t deny the amazing winter we’ve been having in the US.”
No “context” given, no appropriate framing relegates one-off billboard items as “cherry-picking” in my book. I gave an reasonable reply to another about the 1896 …. that’s what I call CONTEXT and meaningful information. Yeah, I have many refs, but am keeping them for now.
If all one has is Bourke was in a 6 week heat wave and hit 128 degrees …. it doesn’t add up to a hill of beans. If people want to make a real point they need to fill that out with cross referecned broad based information that extends far further and tells a real story – a narrative that stacks up with supporting historical evidence. Hot then , hot now, same temps, means nothing, and it should mean nothing to everyone.
But a multi-week heat wave avg 105-115F maximums from eastern Australia to western Australia, from central QLD down to Melbourne, with bushfires here and there, 500 deaths all up, that is such big news it is a story carried internationally in the 19th century press, then you might just have something to take someone’s attention. Especially when January can be one of the wetter months in the east and north. Follow?
Now HGW whatever, go LINK all that with a 1896 nth hemisphere january/february winter above average temps in Alaska, drought in California west coast, freezing conditions in the mid-west, east, florida, canada …. floods i the UK western europe, sailing cutters (ships) being sunk or gone missing forever in atlantic storms …. an open NW passage or warm siberian arctic conditions the summer of 1895, and then you might just be cooking wiht gas.
But no, all too hard I guess. Drop out the one liner, and it;s all good. Job done. Don;t think so, think critically works better Go the extra yard and don;t believe a single thing anyone, and I mean ANYONE, tells tells you on the internet.
Ya never know who you might be speaking to.
Have to run along. excuse typos, best to all.
NRG22 says: February 28, 2014 at 10:59 am
WTF does what M Mann do somewhere else I have never been to, have to do with ME, besides nothing?
I don’t have twitter (never will), nor Facebook, (never will), I don’t follow him (or anyone) like a junkie all over the internet.
NRG22 asks: – “You mean self-promotion like that?”
……… well what do you think?
Take a stab at it, toss a coin or make your best GUESS.
As if you actually give a toss what I think. Stand up and speak for yourself. Don’t lean all over me like a drunk at 3am in a nightclub crying for a lift home from someone you don’t know. What crap.
Walter,
First, thanks for taking the time to try to explain your argument to me. I appreciate it.
Unfortunately, I’m still not following you. When you say:
(emphasis added)
I see you saying that I’m looking at the items in the paragraph ‘above only’, but that you are going back ‘another paragraph’.
Okay, so the paragraphs are as follows:
(paragraph numbers added in bold for reference purposes)
So I am saying that the words These judgements in paragraph 7 refer to the judgements discussed in paragraph 6. If you are going back another paragraph, that would be paragraph 5, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
Am I understanding you correctly?
I have no substantial quarrel with this, although I fail to grasp why you are making the distinction. I mention this because again, I don’t want to misunderstand you.
At any rate, you continue:
Perhaps we are getting to the heart of the matter here.
Are you saying:
1) That Dr. Moore is saying that the fact that climate models cannot predict the future is the basis for ‘these judgements’ (extremely likely that humans have caused warming etc)? Because while I understand how one could grammatically parse his words that way, that’s not actually what he’s trying to say. At worst, we’re talking about whether or not Dr. Moore made a grammatical error in this case.
or
2) That Dr. Moore is incorrect to dismiss ‘these judgements’ (extremely likely that humans have caused warming) on the basis that the models can’t project the future? If this is what you are saying, I understand your point. That ‘no model can project the future’ doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with whether or not you can use models for attribution of the past.
If #2 is the case, I understand your point. I understand, but I don’t particularly agree. While it is not necessarily true that if models can’t predict the future they cannot be used for past attribution, I think it happens to be true. If a model shows no predictive skill in a certain metric, then I think reasonable people would doubt the results of that model applied to attribution of past events.
Really, looking at it back from the top down, I think you’re being rather hard on Dr. Moore over minor details in phrasing. He was addressing a non-technical audience, trying to make high level points clear.
Anyway, once again, I appreciate your having taken the time to clarify your position.
Walter K appeared here yesterday, determined to set everyone straight about the IPCC. He refers to the IPCC’s “expert judgement” as if it were scientific evidence. But it isn’t.
Furthermore, that “expert judgement” has been shown to be about 40% NGO/QUANGO propaganda [much of it supplied by the WWF], but portrayed as if it is scientific evidence. It is not.
Scientific ‘evidence’ consists of raw data and empirical observations. Neither computer models, nor peer reviewed papers and the IPCC’s pronouncements are scientific ‘evidence’. They are at best, conjectures. Opinions. Beliefs. But there is no credible supporting evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. None at all.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us at the stage of evidence-free conjecture. Now, Walter and others may believe that “carbon” causes runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. But we cannot argue with belief, any more than we can argue with religion. We see throughout Walter’s comments that he believes that human CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, despite scientific evidence to the contrary.
Just so we understand where the lines are drawn. Walter believes. But scientific skeptics need testable, measurable evidence. If Walter has any, now is the time to post it.
hmm. I said ‘grammatical error’. That’s not the case. The error would be in sentence structure somehow in case #1, but it’s not incorrect grammar.
Whatever. This isn’t particularly important, but I said that wrong in my post above.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0&referrer=
I would love to provide endless links that call into question the events you listed as being linked to climate change.
Many of these have been recently discussed here, such as the uk floods. Not only have they occurred in a river that they stopped dredging a few decades back, but even the Met Office disagreed with Slingo saying that her statement that the floods were certainly linked to climate change couldn’t be verified.
I did find one link for you about the California drought. Its from green-loving Justin Gillis of the NYT (see link at top of post).i hope you find it of interest.
Regards
Aaaah, bugger, I need to go …. you’re a machine! I was in a hurry and weary, so some words I screwed up (again)
Am I understanding you correctly? YES. More an addition, than a distinction.
It is simply how I read the article right from the beginning. When I read his “these judgments” I applied that to ALL the above, not just the not “extremely likely” bits.
Then I went “twang” when I saw him talking about future models, when he was actually addressing past conditions and the attribution for causation. It all made no sense to me.
But now I do see how you looked at it, and understand that angle too. Which is fine.
I also can accept that “that’s not actually what he’s trying to say.” as you describe. I don;t make a distinction between being confused by grammar, or the maths btw. But I can get an unintended confusion too. And if that is all it is, then hey, I;m happy chappy on this point about what he meant.
Very pedantic, sure, but it is how I read it … it is how it was said as much as how I read it or “viewed it” myself. I take half the blame no problem.
There’s a kicker still about option 2) … I hear what you’re saying and that’s all fine and reasonable,. no arguments. There’s models and then there’s models. Not going there. My biggest grips on this aspect was the “almost entirely,” .. I really don’t buy that. That models play a role sure … but if that was ALL they had they would have nothing to design and run a model for.
Sure, some maybe all here would say that’s right, they “have nothing”. …. and that ain’t worth discussing except between real scientists modelers etc who know what they are talking about in detail.
Thx a lot,
Sorry, but having invested this amount of time already:
That wasn’t what he was saying, and that’s not what his sentence structure suggests, either.
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment….
These judgements … are based on computer models, designed to …”
You can rewrite without changing the meaning:
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment….
These judgements … are based on computer models. These computer models are designed to …”
the ‘desgined to’ clause modifies the computer models, but not the judgements. All he said about the judgements were that they were based on the computer models. He then proceeded to say that the computer models couldn’t predict the future. Back in case #2 – I still think it’s reasonable to say that models that show no predictive skill probably aren’t a good basis for estimating past attribution.
Ok, I’ll let this go now.
HGW xx/7 says: February 28, 2014 at 11:47 am
“…. the events you listed as being linked to climate change”
Seems like you take 1+1 and come up with 37 most times HGW. I did NOT “list them as being linked to CC”
I listed a few top of mind weather events, occurring at the same time as heatwaves in Australia now 2013/14…. and put an honest straight idea to you to have a look for what was the climate elsewhere at the time of 1896, before and after, including the nth hemisphere.
If you found similar events as are happening now also in 1896 or summer 1895 you have hit the jackpot.
I personally never touched the issue of CC or events linked to CC in my reply to you …… I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. or trying to win an online debate, I have my ideas, and I know a few things, and that’s all that’s to it. (believe it or not)
Don’t care what people believe. I’m over it, and have NEVER really bothered arguing about CC etc etc, not for a ages anyway. well bar a few jabs now and then to keep my strength up for fun. Me, I’m just passing through, not looking for a career here.
[ there was typo earlier … I forgot the NOT … ]
db stealy dude
“If there is ANY Psychological projection going on here, I know for a fact that it is NOT me doing it.”
dbstealey says: “He refers to the IPCC’s “expert judgement”
Oh man, some of you guys are dead set bent out of shape …. jumping at SHADOWS everywhere you go …… the IPCC calls it “expert judgment” … read the damned SPM ……
OH f****************!
OK, I’ll prove it to you then, not that it will make a dint in anyone’s thick head …. here’s the QUOTE
“Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement” IPCC WGI AR5 SPM-2 27 September 2013
It’s called using the CORRECT terminology and jargon, and semantics ….. that others use when one is “discussing THEM” …. aaaaarrrrrrhhhhhhhhhh
Do I have to provide the URL link as well?
ha, go fish, try google
GOT IT GOT IT GOT GOT IT YET?
Probably not …
Mark B: said “That Dr. Moore is saying that the fact that climate models cannot predict the future is the basis for ‘these judgements’”
Nope, Dr Moore was saying that climate models that are designed to predict future climate are “almost entirely” the basis upon which those judgments are made = confidence levels and probability.
I think that’s pretty weak argument.
eg co-incidentally ….
“Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement” IPCC WGI AR5 SPM-2 27 September 2013
You’d be amazed what one will find in the 1990 FAR …. many a climate scientist has forgotten!!!
Walter K says:
“You’d be amazed what one will find in the 1990 FAR.”
Yes. The FAR was almost reasonable in it’s confidence estimate. Subsequent AR’s are not.
Walter also claims: “If there is ANY Psychological projection going on here, I know for a fact that it is NOT me doing it.”
Wrong again, just like Walter was wrong when he cherry-picked all his examples of local, natural temperature rises. Both faults come from the same mind that has been colonized by global warming propaganda.
Mark, I see this and agree you got that especially right ….. not grammar, (can’t think of the term, but I know what you mean here…. “parsed”?
RE
the ‘desgined to’ clause modifies the computer models, but not the judgements. All he said about the judgements were that they were based on the computer models.
YES, makes more sense ./…. I think SOME judgments, parts of some judgments are indeed being influenced by the climate models.
But not so much the judgements about “certainty/likelihood/attribution/probability’ judgments of PAST observations … future very much so …. but not the past.
It’s this sense I particularly felt it was not at all clear, and was misrepresenting the state of affairs, the way he said it …. he may not have “meant it either”, but only he can say now.
Words and sentences huh? Drive one to drink almost. TY very much Mark B, very good and helpful all round. Now can I go?
Walter
dbstealey says: February 28, 2014 at 12:36 pm
“Wrong again, just like Walter was wrong when he cherry-picked all his examples of local, natural temperature rises. Both faults come from the same mind that has been colonized by global warming propaganda.”
Thanks for confirming you’ve totally lost the plot and off on a happy joy ride through Psychosisland. – BYE give my best to the fairies
Mark B, sorry an error .. “certainty/likelihood/attribution/probability’ judgments of PAST observations …
take out “attribution” where they DO very much rely upon past history models to determine the attribution for CO2e forcing component.
Which is precisely why they will never go above “extremely likely @ur momisugly 95% confidence” because NO computer is “real world perfect”. always some doubt involved as to “quantity”
I say as simply passing on what the IPCC and modelers “say” … not to convince anyone it is true. That’s up to you.
With Moore, well, it’s a “judgement” as to how much is required for “proof” … that is an issue in all science, medical especially … with similar levels of uncertainty involved every time they release a new drug/treatment.
If you are up to it please check this note: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/#comment-1578852 regarding warming and temps.
For ~5 years or so I have heard working climate scientists and online material pushing the view that despite a slowing rate of temps, the “warming” was continuing apace anyway. Equivocation after equivocation. recently I found that 2011 comment … and blew my stack for 24 hours.
I checked the IPCC glossary and Gavin Schmidt appears to be correct .. but who knew besides him, is the question? To blame Peilke for this “misunderstanding” was pathetic imho.
You’re good with words and meanings .. what do you make of it?
Walter
Walter,
Are you talking about this?
I’m not familiar with that dialog, but I hope to research it when I’ve got a minute. And actually, I’ve got to run now 🙂 I’ve spent way more time messing around on blogs today than I really ought to have. Not that that’s likely to deter me in the future.
Walter K says:
“Thanks for confirming you’ve totally lost the plot and off on a happy joy ride through Psychosisland. – BYE give my best to the fairies”
That is what someone writes when they cannot refute the specific points raised.
What is your CV, Walter? You keep arguing with a PhD, as if you are as knowledgeable.
But I very much doubt that.
I want my gases separated.
Every time I breath out my influence I feel a sense of relief. Influence is an important greenhouse gas I’ve been told.
A PhD? Wow, amazing! Who knew? And here I thought you were a psychic mind-reader. Silly me. Certainly wasn’t a PhD in respect for your fellow man, nor in reading comprehension:101 that’s for sure. But so long as you are happy with yourself, who am I to judge?
Walter K,
I did not make myself as clear as I should have. I was referring to Dr. Patrick Moore.
Now, about that mythical CV of yours…
“Walter K. says:
February 28, 2014 at 4:30 am”
You’ve not presented any facts at all, just the usual alarmist PoV and links to the BoM (LOL). You claim to have “seen” data/information, apparently unavailable to lesser mortals, but you won’t publish here at WUWT, you’ve “over it” and “not interested”, go figure. Fact: In 2013, the BoM changed the way it “measures” temps on the Australian continent. And 2013 became the “hottest” year on record. And yet, their own online records, and non-BoM historical records, disputes that claim! I’ve done my research too, and I cannot be bothered, like you, to publish it here for you to see (Another postie already linked to an article here at WUWT which demonstrates 2013 was not unusually “hot” for an Aussie summer).
Mark Bofill, yes that specific comment from Oct 2011.
Since then RealClimate, IPCC, and everyone else have been chasing this illusive “missing heat” not showing up in GMSTs, whilst saying at the same time that “warming has NOT slowed at all” as per “assumptions” of SLR, arctic ice glacier losses, extreme weather events, it’s being absorbed by the oceans (but the last decade it wasn’t?), and of course the old chestnut “natural variability” (which is reasonable imho given only 0.2C per decade variation).
Recent published Papers now have several “reasons” for the slowing in temps which adds up to 3 times the total amount supposedly missing .. and so the new “argument” has become well the GMSTs have been “under-estimated” and there is not even a slowing in “real” temps anymore as per Cowtan & Way especially.
It’s not the ‘science’ of all this that i am interested in — it is the flawed “cognitive thinking” and excuse making and equivocation of “slippery slopes” that is a thorn in my side here. I can handle errors in methodology and natural variations, but not the mis-representations of what is warming and what is not … then for years on end cherry-picking to suit whatever the latest ‘denier’ complaint might be…. and claiming (or rather intimating it) that is now a “scientific based” opinion or fact…. with a note saying to the “public” you go read the “published papers”.
Like almost every paper written about on real climate in 2012-2013 relates back to explaining away this so called “hiatus” suggesting it was not really real at all …. and was a “mis-representation and mis-understanding” by all these non-climate scientists.
Now, Gavin Schmidt is from NASA GISS ….. ok? This shows up recently and is NEW News to me, and yet again it’s a different “story” all over again.
QUOTING Official NASA figures
Many people think the hiatus is many years “old”. Two decades, or at least 15 years old …
Not at all … It is actually only three (3) years old, too short a period to produce what you mention it should. Following list, taken from NASA, shows “sliding” decades, and corresponding temperature changes:
1991-2001: +0.12ºC
1992-2002: +0.43ºC
1993-2003: +0.42ºC
1994-2004: +0.25ºC
1995-2005: +0.26ºC
1996-2006: +0.26ºC
1997-2007: +0.19ºC
1998-2008: -0.12ºC
1999-2009: +0.25ºC
2000-2010: +0.30ºC
2001-2011: +0.02ºC
2002-2012: -0.04ºC
2003-2013: +0.02ºC
Apart from the decade starting in the exceptional year of 1998, ONLY last thee ending in 2011, 2012 and 2013 show no clear warming. [end quote]
Cheers
Patrick says: — to have “seen” data/information —
yes, of the 1896 heatwave not previously published on climate related blogs. You got a problem with that?
Since when was I your slave to your bidding? I have other things to do in my life. I gave the highlights ….. you can accept that, or go search yourself. It’s free, try google if you are talented enough to find it. Look on it as a personal “challenge”.
RE “demonstrates 2013 was not unusually “hot” for an Aussie summer)”
not unusually? over the entire continent … two summers in a row, the whole of 2012 with record breaking temps, followed by all of 2013 with record breaking temps, warmest winter in 2013 since Noah built an Arc, worst bush fires in living memory in multiple regions early SPRING 2013, then early summer, then mid-summer all over the continent in 2013/14, and yet here you are you happily believing someone (an expert?) on the “internet” who tells you it wasn’t that “unusual” …. and that the BOM have fudged the figures / changed their system and that’s why dumb people think it is unusual because the TV news with stiff in a white jacket from BOM says it was a record? Otherwise no one would have noticed it was HOT?
F******** Bullshit, that is simply insane, honestly it is utterly disconnected from reality. .. and from plain common sense.
Did you bother to ask a volunteer firefighter whose being doing it for 40 years maybe? No, well they are not as expert as a pixeled report in words given on WUWT .. no way. And I am just making it up because I’ve been brainwashed and can’t look out my own window and see which way the breeze is blowing?
Did you go look at ONE of those reports from The Conversation written by completely separate universities who are experts in their field? Nope. Probably was written by the sister of someone who works at the BOM and part of the world takeover I suppose.
Like how dumb do you really want to be in your life, before some simple common sense cracks your skull open (metaphorically speaking) ?
LOL
“When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today,.. Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages”
Dr. Moore,
The fact that when CO2 was 10x higher (4,000 ppm) temperature was 22 C demonstrates the GHE theory is correct. This actually translates to 2.3 C increase in temperature for every doubling of CO2. Meaning 400 ppm to 4,000 ppm = 14.5 C to 22 C
This is consistent with the observed temperature and CO2 rise in the 20th century, which translates to 2.4 C for doubling of CO2. Derived by extrapolating the actual data. But this can also be due to other factors or to chance.