By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Shock news from the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Climate Change Conference: among the 600 delegates, the consensus that Man contributes to global warming was not 97%. It was 100%.
During my valedictorian keynote at the conference, I appointed the lovely Diane Bast as my independent adjudicatrix. She read out six successive questions to the audience, one by one. I invited anyone who would answer “No” to that question to raise a hand. According to the adjudicatrix, not a single hand was raised in response to any of the questions.
These were the six questions.
1. Does climate change?
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
At a conference of 600 “climate change deniers”, then, not one delegate denied that climate changes. Likewise, not one denied that we have contributed to global warming since 1950.
One of the many fundamental dishonesties in the climate debate is the false impression created by the Thermageddonites and their hosts of allies in the Main Stream Media (MSM) that climate skeptics would answer “No” to most – if not all – of the six questions.
That fundamental dishonesty was at the core of the Cook et al. “consensus” paper published last year. The authors listed three “levels of endorsement” supporting some sort of climate consensus.
Level 1 reflected the IPCC’s definition of consensus: that most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made. Levels 2 and 3 reflected explicit or implicit acceptance that Man causes some warming. The Heartland delegates’ unanimous opinion fell within Level 2.
Cook et al., having specified these three “levels of endorsement”, and having gone to the trouble of reading and marking 11,944 abstracts, did not publish their assessment of the number of abstracts they had marked as falling into each of the three endorsement levels. Instead, they published a single aggregate total combining all three categories.
Their failure to report the results fully was what raised my suspicions that their article fell short of the standards of integrity that the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would have expected of a paper purporting to be scientific.
The text file recording the results of Cook’s survey was carefully released only after several weeks following publication, during which the article claiming 97% consensus had received wall-to-wall international publicity from the MSM. Even Mr Obama’s Twitteratus had cited it with approval as indicating that “global warming is real, man-made and dangerous”.
The algorithm counted the number of abstracts Cook had allocated to each level of endorsement. When the computer displayed the results, I thought there must have been some mistake. The algorithm had found only 64 out of the 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, marked as falling within Level 1, reflecting the IPCC consensus that recent warming was mostly man-made.
I carried out a manual check using the search function in Microsoft Notepad. Sure enough, there were only 64 data entries ending in “,1”.
Next, I read all 64 abstracts and discovered – not greatly to my surprise – that only 41 had explicitly said Man had caused most of the global warming over the past half century or so.
In the peer-reviewed learned journals, therefore, only 41 of 11,944 papers, or 0.3% – and not 97.1% – had endorsed the definition of the consensus proposition to which the IPCC, in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, had assigned 95-99% confidence.
Now that we have the results of the Heartland Conference survey, the full extent of the usual suspects’ evasiveness about climate “consensus” can be revealed.
Cook et al. had lumped together the 96.8% who, like all 100% of us at ICCC9, had endorsed the proposition that we cause some warming with the 0.3% who had endorsed the IPCC’s proposition that we caused most of the warming since 1950.
In defiance of the evidence recorded in their own data file, they had then explicitly stated, both in their article and in a subsequent article, that 97.1% had endorsed the IPCC’s proposition.
Amusingly, 96.8% is 97% of 97.1%. In other words, 97% of the abstracts that formed the basis of the “97% consensus” claim in Cook et al. (2013) did not endorse the IPCC’s definition of the consensus, as the article had falsely claimed they did. However, those abstracts did endorse the more scientifically credible Heartland definition.
Among the unspeakable representatives of the MSM who came to the Heartland conference to conduct sneering interviews with climate “deniers” was a smarmy individual from CNN.
He asked me, in that supercilious tone with which we are all too familiar, how it was that I, a mere layman, dared to claim that I knew better than 97% of published climate scientists. I referred him to Legates et al. (2013), the peer-reviewed refutation of the notion that 97% of scientists endorse the IPCC’s assertion that most of the warming since 1950 was man-made.
The CNN reporter said that the result in Legates et al. was merely my “interpretation”. So I pointed to a row of internet booths nearby and said, “If I count these booths and find that there are, say, 12 of them, and if you count them and find there are indeed 12 of them, then our finding is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of fact, that any third party can independently verify.”
I challenged him to go away, before he broadcast anything, and count how many of the 11,944 abstracts listed in the Cook et al. data file were marked by the authors themselves as falling within Level 1. If he counted only 64, I said, then his count would accord with mine. And our counts would not be an “interpretation” but a fact, whose truth or falsity might readily and definitively be established by any third party performing exactly the same count as ours.
He said he would check, but with that look in his eye that seemed to speak otherwise.
The results of my survey of the 600 Heartland delegates reveal that the difference between the Thermageddonites and us is far less than they would like the world to think. Like most of them, we fall within Cook’s endorsement levels 2-3. Unlike them, we do not claim to know whether most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made: for that is beyond what the current state of science can tell us.
Above all, unlike them we do not misreport a 0.3% consensus as a 97.1% consensus.
You may like to verify the results recorded in Cook’s data file for yourself. I have asked Anthony to archive the file (it resides here: cook.pdf ).
[UPDATE: David Burton writes: I’ve put the Cook 2013 data into an Excel spreadsheet, which makes it a lot easier to analyze than from that cook.pdf file. There’s a link to it on my site, here: http://sealevel.info/97pct/#cook ]
If the reporter from CNN who interviewed me reads this, I hope he will perform the count himself and then come back to me as he had undertaken to do. But I shall not be holding my breath.
The climate around Phoenix and Tucson remains warm while climate in rural Arizona has been cooling since around 2000.
Warming of Phoenix and Tucson has contributed to global average temperature rise.
I conclude from this that humans are, to some degree, responsible for warming, whether or not CO2 plays a role.
Konrad;
And to win, AGW believers need all voices on sceptic forums to be lukewarmer. This cannot be achieved. Therefore sceptics will win.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your analysis of public discourse and political process appears to be at the same level as your physics. You clearly understand neither, and no amount of observational data will dissuade you from your opinion. Your are precisely the type of person that Leif was referring to upthread, and you do more harm to this debate than you can possibly understand
@Björn from Sweden
I was quite surprised at the use of the word “Likely” by Monckton, in this context,
because he had just given an extended critique on the use of such terms, by the
IPCC in its analyses of scientific papers, in its latest Assessment Report.
As a matter of interest, different English Lexicons have a variety of
different ways of describing the meaning of the word “Likely”, and
these also differ, as to whether the word is used as an Adjective,
or as an Adverb, since both are valid usage.
In the case of Monckton’s original question Q6, it is used
as an adjective, which is qualifying the proposition put.
In American (US) English usage, the meanings of words can
have subtle, and sometimes not so subtle differences, and
for instance “Fanny” has radically different meanings in British
English, and in US English, whereas in Scotland and Australia,
that word might usually be used in a derisory sense, rather
than in a descriptive factuality.
We Assume that Monckton used the word “Likely” as defined
in British English, but was that what was understood, by his
(mostly) US English speaking audience?
—
British English :
Cambridge –
describes something that will probably happen or is expected
Oxford –
1. Such as well might happen or be true; probable
2. Apparently suitable; promising
—
American (US) English :
Princeton University –
1. Has a good chance of being the case or of coming about
2. Having a high chance to be (or become) true or real
3. Expected to become or be; in prospect
4. Within the realm of credibility *
—
Webster’s dictionary describes the etymology of this word thus :
Middle English, from Old English “gelīclic” fitting (from gelīc like)
and Old Norse “glīkligr”, līkligr, from glīkr like; akin to Old English gelīc
First Known Use: 14th century
Related Words as an adjective :
conceivable, earthly, imaginable, possible, potential,
supposable; apt, bound, certain, doubtless, imminent,
inescapable, inevitable, liable, necessary, sure, unavoidable
Related Words as an adverb :
maybe, mayhap, perchance, perhaps, possibly; conceivably,
imaginably, plausibly, practically, reasonably; potentially;
assuredly, certainly, clearly, conclusively, decisively, definitely,
definitively, indisputably, indubitably, positively, really, surely,
truly, undeniably, undoubtedly, unquestionably; presumedly,
supposably, supposedly
—————-
So then “likely” is such a flexible word with so many nuances
of meaning depending on the context in which it is used, and
is so widely open to misinterpretation, that it ought not to be used
in any such scientific discourse, or in a vox pop, or other poll, where
the exact meaning construed is critical to the understanding of the
question, and indeed the answers which are being solicited.
Indeed, your thoughts on whether a thing might be “more likely”
or on the other hand “less likely”, are part of the schema which
the IPCC has used, and tried to define with actual percentages.
Such definitions are in mine opinion, fatuous. Why not substitute
the actual percentages which they have calculated, rather than
defining a particular percentage as being in the grouping of
“More Likely” or “Extremely Likely” or similar hokum?
—-
Many of You, Dear Readers, may think of my writings on this matter
as a petty argument about semantics of the English Language, which
has seemingly little relevance to the important questions in this debate.
However I see this as absolutely vital. How can scientists, politicians,
and indeed the public be expected to understand, and form a view on
the substantive issue, if confusing and ambiguous words such as “likely”
are used in crucial dissertations, summaries, and polling?
Might I suggest a helpful exercise for prospective authors,
and that would be to use an English thesaurus, to find a
more precise word, when the initial word thought of, by
the author, might have an ambiguous meaning.
Words with ambiguous meanings are often used to deliberately
confuse or distract the reader, and by lawyers in performance
of their duties for clients, but such tactics have no place in the
field of scientific research, reporting, or in soliciting opinions
about such scientific endeavour.
I would say: #1 – #5, Yes.
#6: Show me. Provide measurable, testable scientific evidence quantifying the fraction of a degree warming due to human emitted CO2. If given that testable data, I agree with #6.
But so far, there is no such data. Therefore, it is a conjecture. An assertion. I’m willing to accept it with no problem if there is supporting evidence posted, because the goal is knowledge, not being right.
But I can’t accept #6 as being currently verified; it isn’t. Give me testable, measurable evidence, please.
kadaka those graphs are very messy. This one is much clearer http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif.
What is the point to your missive? Everyone does contigency planning/forecasting to some extent. My discussions involve contingencies in the solar activity and weather/climate response, based on historical data/learning. Today Joe D released this http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/welcome_back_to_the_1950s_and_soon_the_1960s_70s_and_then_18001/
His view on imminent cooling is about the same as mine, and mine is borne out of an analysis of the SIDC-SST graph linked above, which has much hidden information in it. Please keep on eye on solar activity and temperatures for the rest of the year. You’ll definitely learn something.
I will note that Don Easterbrook, David Evans, David Archibald, Piers Corbyn, Henry P, (there are many more) are among those who for years have been calling for colder temps based on a solar activity dropoff. I learned what to look for by paying close attention, and I can only hope my fellow skeptics will pick up on the habit of paying attention to daily activity over at least six months to get a handle on the temp response to solar ups and downs. That was the point of those explanations.
James Abbott says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Latitude – I checked those references. There are references to the Keeling data having been manipulated, the pre-industrial levels being wrong, etc. All tosh. The Mauna Loa smoothed curve is exactly that – smoothed on a running mean (standard method) but they still show the seasonal “breathing” of the biosphere. Location differences ? Nope – the global trend, based on a network of sites shows a very similar record to the Mauna Loa data taken at altitude.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global
The pre-industrial level of 280ppm is confirmed from ice cores:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php
There is no real evidence that this data has been “deliberately corrupted”. Its just more wishful thinking from those that delude themselves that the entire scientific community is working to a conspiracy plan.
The ice core data as published takes no account of diffusion of CO2 from the bubbles through the ice. See:
“CO2 diffusion in polar ice: observations from naturally formed CO2 spikes in the Siple Dome (Antarctica) ice core”, Jinho AHN, Melissa HEADLY, Martin WAHLEN, Edward J. BROOK,
Paul A. MAYEWSKI, Kendrick C. TAYLOR; Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 54, No. 187, 2008
“ABSTRACT. One common assumption in interpreting ice-core CO2 records is that diffusion in the ice does not affect the concentration profile. However, this assumption remains untested because the extremely small CO2 diffusion coefficient in ice has not been accurately determined in the laboratory. In this study we take advantage of high levels of CO2 associated with refrozen layers in an ice core from Siple Dome, Antarctica, to study CO2 diffusion rates. We use noble gases (Xe/Ar and Kr/Ar), electrical conductivity and Ca2+ ion concentrations to show that substantial CO2 diffusion may occur in ice on timescales of thousands of years. We estimate the permeation coefficient for CO2 in ice is 4 10^–21 molm^–1 s^–1 Pa^–1 at –238C in the top 287m (corresponding to 2.74 kyr). Smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion at this depth/age is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than the smoothing in the firn. However, simulations for depths of 930–950m (60–70 kyr) indicate that smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion in deep ice is comparable to smoothing in the firn. Other types of diffusion (e.g. via liquid in ice grain boundaries or veins) may also be important but their influence has not been quantified”
The raw ice core data also does not agree with stomata data nor does it agree with the chemical measurements made in the 19th and early 20th centuries. For example see:
“50 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT OF CO2 ON MAUNA LOA”, Ernst-Georg Beck, Energy and Environment Vol 19 No.7 2008. Section 3 CO2 Measurements of the Background before 1958. in particular the collated references to other research.
The ice cores seem to be a cherry pie that has been concocted by ‘the team’.
dbstealey says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:38 am
Ditto that.
Wun Hung Lo, this semantics discussion is very important.
I am from Sweden, and english is a foreign language to me.
Further, the nuances of this languge are lost to me.
I have learned english not from direct two way communication with native english speakers but from reading. Therefore guidance in interpreting subtle menings are missing from my english education, eg facial expressions, follow up questions, confirmation etc.
And I know that my english is better than many swedish scientists.
Therefore it is important to keep in mind, when adressing a global audience, that language can be deceptive and it is easy for a foreigner to believe he has understood something when in fact he has not. Especially surveys which surpsisingly often, almost as a rule, are vague and difficult to interpret.
It is not a trivial discussion, it may be a little OT though.
Leif,
Yes, it was a PR stunt, a good and useful one, and nothing more.
Answering unqualified “yes” to all six questions is as stupid as answering unqualified “no” to any of these questions.
Stop behaving like a foolish teenager, and, please, use parentheses as required, not meaningless brackets.
Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:24 am
Answering unqualified “yes” to all six questions is as stupid as answering unqualified “no” to any of these questions.
Since nobody answered “no” [implying that they did not disagree] everybody was stupid. I can accept that.
If 99.7% of scientific papers did not say that recent global warming was mostly man-made, but 0.5% did, please point me to one of the 0.2% that both did and didn’t.
Again folks
there is no man made warming
whatsoever
There simply is no room for it in my last [established] equation
(at the end of the minima table)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
lsvalgaard: “…everybody was stupid.”
Or uncertain.
I consider it very likely Monckton expected the lack of response to his subjective questions, which made the audience appear as consensus-oriented as those he mocks.
nutso fasst says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Or uncertain. I consider it very likely Monckton expected the lack of response to his subjective questions, which made the audience appear as consensus-oriented as those he mocks.
Let me mock you a bit on the ‘very likely” 🙂
But, of course, the PR-stunt was carefully rigged to give the required response. Just goes to show the fraudulent behavior of activists on both side of the question.
The stupid ones are the people who hail this stunt as significant, e.g. “Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:24 am Yes, it was a PR stunt, a good and useful one” and many others. How low can the skeptics stoop? Disgusting to witness.
Lief, global warming is real and man’s co2 has caused some of it. I too am with the consensus. The question is how much of the warming is down to man? The Sky Dragons do peep in once in a while and give a false impression. I have warned them before that this is not the way to win the debate, EVEN IF THEY ARE CONVINCED OF THEIR CASE. They simply get brushed aside by Warmists who tar everyone with the ‘D’ label.
Jimbo says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Lief, global warming is real and man’s co2 has caused some of it. I too am with the consensus. The question is how much of the warming is down to man?
As I also said: it is a question about ‘how much’ [or ‘how little’ if you are on the other side of the fence]. The Poll was a useless PR-stunt.
Monckton’s PR stunt does show one very significant attribute of the 600 or so audience members. When not a single one is able to say “NO” to a question, you have something much worse than “consensus.” You have blind adherence to the ideology. Effectively Monckton has shown that in a gathering of “skeptics” not a single one was a skeptic
“very likely”
ha ha ha !
I wondered whether there was some irony being used here.
That is to say, language used to convey scorn, by saying
one thing but implying the opposite.
Still you make a fair point. With Monckton’s method of conducting
the poll by a show of hands in the audience, and asking the group
to signify whether they disagreed with his proposition, there is an
almost overwhelming peer pressure, to not be “the one” who is first
to go against the group and break the “consensus” of the meeting,
and to disagree with the principal speaker of the meeting.
I suspect that if the same poll were to be conducted by “secret ballot”,
then the results would not have been unanimous, and that even among
such an audience of sceptics, there would have been some deviation.
The poll, as conducted, although achieving the desired (and expected)
result, so far as Monckton was concerned, is not therefore a fair one.
Apparently all the preceding questions were leading up to that crucial
final Q6, by which time the bandwagon effect had made it virtually certain
that the audience would not disagree, no matter what Monckton had asked.
A different result might have occurred, had Monckton asked solely the Q6.
Naturally the danger in making such a feast of this manoeuvre, is that it
will be seen as a ruse, and demolished by the opposition, thus having
the contrary effect in the final analysis, to that which was intended by
Monckton. I suspect that this impromptu poll may cause even more
controversy and will be seized upon by the CO2 alarmists, as yet more
“evidence” of disingenuous doings by the “Heartland bête noires”.
Well, while not objecting to the six questions as asked, I’m not able to give an unqualified yes to all six.
On number 4, I would have to voice a basic objection to the notion, that one can (or is permitted in science modeling to) alter ANY one single parameter of the system, and insist that ALL other parameters undergo NO change whatsoever. That simply cannot happen in the physically real universe.
Take Ohm’s Law for example.
“”” For a certain class of materials (mostly metallic conductors) in an electric circuit; when all other physical variables are held constant, the current flowing is linearly proportional to the applied EMF. “””
That says literally:- I = a x EMF where (a) is a constant (when ALL other physical quantities are held constant). Well it would normally be written as ; I = G.V where G is defined as the conductance in siemens units. Alternatively we could define 1 / G = R and call that “resistance” in units of ohm.
So Ohm’s law simply says; R is constant, where R can be defined as V / I.
But the required conditions are not realizable. Changing the applied Voltage and Current, will result in an energy dissipation in the conductor material, and for all materials will change the Temperature, and this invariably results in a change of R.
Does an incandescent light bulb obey Ohm’s Law. Well of course it does, when you satisfy the conditions.
So only very small Voltages can be applied, without significant power dissipation and Temperature rise. You certainly can’t get any visible radiation out of it, while it follows Ohm’s law.
Well that in itself (emission of visible EM radiation) would be a violation of the conditions of Ohm’s law, that nothing else changes (besides Voltage and current)
Most conductive materials do not obey Ohm’s law. (semiconductors for example.)
So I object to question #4.
For question #5 I would plead total ignorance.
I have zero confidence in any purported global Temperature estimates or data, prior to about 1979/80 the arrival of the satellite data era, and also the oceanic buoy water / air Temperature measurements.
So I don’t know for sure that earth has warmed appreciably, since about 1850, let alone since 1950.
But I get Monckton of Brenchley’s point in asking those questions at the conference; to get on record, that not all climate skeptics can be branded as fossil fuel shills, living off grant money from industrial interests; comparable to a good number of warmist disciples, who live off their post doc fellowship grant,s from other vested interests, including the public (tax payers) dole.
g
There is experimental evidence that the Hypotheses of greenhouse gas effect does not exist.
There is experimental data that proves that increased CO2 causes the atmosphere to cool. Lord M. you better brush up on the real scene.Here are just a few references tat back up this position.
List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist consenus, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author) http://www.principia-scientific.org
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.”
Benjamin Franklin
.
From Bob Weber on July 12, 2014 at 9:53 am:
You were wise to conceal the true source of that graph, but not smart as the URL lead to the source:
http://climate4you.com/Sun.htm
They have graphs there: Solar irradiance since 1610 as reconstructed by Lean et al (1995) and Lean (2000), until 2000. From 2001 data from PMOD/WRC are used.
They used the discredited Lean reconstructions that Judith Lean no longer recommends, and the VIRGO data from PMOD which has a degradation issue. I would say I wouldn’t have revealed the source page either except I would have sourced from a site using better more-traceable data.
Here’s a normalized replication:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:2014.18/normalise/offset:-0.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:2014.18/mean:37/normalise/offset:-0.5/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1960/to:2014.18/normalise/offset:0.5/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1960/to:2014.18/mean:37/normalise/offset:0.5
Now I can click on “Raw Data” and have actual numbers to look at. Your previous use of “short term” has the connotation of within a year or so. Since you were happy with the 37-month running mean of the climate4you graph, I’ll look at the minimums of that, looking for similarly large drops within a few years of each other.
Note there’s a difference, for temps January is xxxx.00, for SSN it’s xxxx.05. For this quick look it doesn’t matter much.
Minimums:HadCRUT4_SIDC-SSN
1965.58__1964.47
1975.33__1976.38
1985.42__1986.05
1993.17__1996.13
2000.17__?
2008.58__2008.55
Yup, in 1964-65 SSN did start going up about a year before global temperatures.
Then temps lead SSN 1976-75, 1985-86, lead in a longer stretch 1993-1996. There’s a 2000 temp drop not matched to SSN.
And then, in 2008 were they really almost simultaneous, and SSN lead by a month? No. Look at the actual curve shape, the more representative temperature minimum was on 2007.67.
So out of the five pairs, coming out of minimums, global temperatures have led SSN for the last 4 times.
Global temperatures rose about a year or more before solar activity rose 80% of the time, during the time period shown on your proffered graph.
So why should I believe your earlier claim that increased solar activity will lead to increased sea surface temperatures, when the global temperatures were increasing a year or more before solar activity increased 80% of the time?
I’ve already learned you predict the obvious and what is already occurring, when you’re not predicting what is a coin toss, thus guaranteeing yourself a better than 50% success rate before your words slip sideways out of your mouth.
Otherwise, I’ve learned your ability to do simple research and grasp basic fundamentals is so slim I can hardly get by the first paragraph of your replies without devoting an entire comment to correct just those first few lines of nonsense. Stop writing so much, you just embarrass yourself more.
I cannot believe that I am literally watching lsvalgaard have a public hissy fit over something he repeatedly states was such an obviously stupid publicity stunt! (He doth protest much) Maybe he’s never been to a normal convention of anything. You know, where absolutely no one expects the large gathering speeches to be of the quality of peer reviewed research…Maybe he’s unaware that Lord Monkton has a fabulous sense of humor. I mean, he seems convinced that Lord Monkton phrased the questions in a manner such that they get the answers he wanted, yet it’s obvious to ME that he phrased them in the exact same terms the IPCC uses. I don’t know..perhaps because his sole intent was to compare the results WITH the infamous Cook et al survey that purported to show a consensus with the IPCC statements?
Or perhaps Lord Monkton doesn’t give a rat’s rear view what you or I or anyone else thinks and takes full advantage of his right to speak freely for his own personal delight and entertainment. And good for him! But Leif lost any sympathy I might have had for his “point of view” when he was asked this question:
“So the fact that there are people who frequent this board who have odd and unacceptable points of view discredits the entire site and all skeptics?”
And Leif responded-“To some degree it does, yes.”
Wow. Really Leif? What metric have you used to calculate that? What “numbers” do you have that prove actual discrediting has taken place? I mean…”if we don’t have numbers, we don’t have anything right?” Of all the odd and unacceptable points of view I’ve seen on this site, that has to be one of the most disturbing ones so far. But good for you!
Aphan says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:25 pm
when he was asked this question:
“So the fact that there are people who frequent this board who have odd and unacceptable points of view discredits the entire site and all skeptics?”
Perhaps the asker was thinking of people like you…
In response to Lief’s Poll, I will stick my neck out.
1. Yes. Ever since planet earth first aquired an atmosphere, climate has changed. Climate change has driven evolution and it would be a cause for concern, if climate were not to change.
2. Yes. (But C02 levels are low for life on earth, particularly plants).
3. Whilst it is clear that manmade emissions of CO2 has increased over the year, it is not possible to determine the cause of this since, it is clear that there has been a change both in the total amount of CO2 emissions, and in the total capacity of CO2 sinks. Since we do not know the full extent of each, what they comprise of, how they operate and their inter-relationship, all one can say is that it is possible that manmade emissions have contributed towards the increase in CO2 levels since 1959.
4. As Lief has pointed out, this is a silly question, since we are only interested in whether rising CO2 levels will drive up temperature irrespective as to whether all other things are equal or not. As to the question, all one can say is that there is no observational data that passes scientific scrutiny that rising levels of C02, at 20th century levels, leads to an increase in temperature; there is no first order correlation in any of the land based, or satellite, temperature data sets between CO2 and temperature, and there are instances of anti-correlation (such as the post 1940s cooling, and the fact that the rate of warming in the latter part of the 20th century was no greater than in the early part of the 20th century). But really, the data sets are so flawed and have substantial error bandwidths such that one cannot extract a CO2 driven temperature response over the noise of natural variability.
5. The temperature data sets are so flawed that that question cannot be reasonably answered. It appears that in the States, there was some cooling post 1950s, followed by some warming in the 1970s, but given that the satellite data suggests that (globally) there was no warming post 1979, save for the ENSO event at the end of the 1990s,, I consider it likely that there has been some net warming since 1950 and the likely cause of the warming, or bulk of it, was the 1998 El Nino. UHI may have led to a perceived warming in the land based data set for the 1970s. Inciidentally, Michael mann’s trees suggested that there was no warming in the 1970s and 1980s and this is consistent with the satellite data which also shows flat temperatures (albiet in the case of the satellite data as from 1979).
6. See 3 and 4 above..
In my above post, I mention the deivergence problem that Michael Mann found. Most readers will be familiar with the divergence issue, but for those who are not, I briefly comment.
Michael Mann in his tree ring study found that his trees were, as from around 1970 to early/mid 1990s, suggesting that global temperatures were not rising. This finding diverged from the land based thermometer record which suggested that there was warming from about mid 1970s onwards.
Michael Mann decided that his trees must be wrong, and that the land based temperature record was correct. He decided to cut and splice the record by using tree data up to the end of the 1960s and the land based thermometer record post then.
However, it is quite possible that Michael Mann had made a significant finding, namely that the land based thermometer record had become corrupted possibly due to station drop outs, poor station siting, pollution by UHI etc so that the land based thermometer record was showing a false warming.
The satellite data post 1979 suggests that teh land based thermometer record had become corrupted and that there was no warming between 1979 and mid 1990s, ie., both the trees and the satellite were saying something similar.
Michael Mann could have written an interesting paper on the divergence issue and could, if he had been constructive, discussed the implication of the diveregence problem on the accuracy of the land based thermometer record.