Now that “the pause” has come of age, and has exceeded 18 years, it is time to revisit a post a made back in November 2011.
Bill Illis reminded me in comments of this spectacular failure of peer reviewed climate science:
Let’s remember several years ago when all the heavy-weights of climate science produced a paper that said the lower troposphere pause had to be at least 17 years long before a clear signal that human-made CO2 warming theories should start to be questioned.
Carl Mears was the second author on that paper along Ben Santer (lead) [and Tom Wigley, Susan Solomon, Tom Karl, Gerald Meehl, Peter Stott, Peter Thorne, Frank Wentz].
Well, that time has now been exceeded and they all have egg on their face.
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-476.pdf
Alhough, if you read Carl Mears article carefully, he is starting the discussion that maybe the theories need to be revised. His use of the d’word may be needed just to keep him in the club and not being shown the door by his other compatriots who accept no questioning at all.
Here’s the current lower troposphere temperature from RSS:
Here’s the reminder press release boasting of their discovery. Emphasis mine.
Separating signal and noise in climate warming
LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.
To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet.
Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature are made with microwave radiometers, and are completely independent of surface thermometer measurements. The satellite data indicate that the lower troposphere has warmed by roughly 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of satellite temperature records in 1979. This increase is entirely consistent with the warming of Earth’s surface estimated from thermometer records.
Recently, a number of global warming critics have focused attention on the behavior of Earth’s temperature since 1998. They have argued that there has been little or no warming over the last 10 to 12 years, and that computer models of the climate system are not capable of simulating such short “hiatus periods” when models are run with human-caused changes in greenhouse gases.
“Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate,” said Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist and lead author on an article in the Nov. 17 online edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres).
Many scientific studies have identified a human “fingerprint” in observations of surface and lower tropospheric temperature changes. These detection and attribution studies look at long, multi-decade observational temperature records. Shorter periods generally have small signal to noise ratios, making it difficult to identify an anthropogenic signal with high statistical confidence, Santer said.
“In fingerprinting, we analyze longer, multi-decadal temperature records, and we beat down the large year-to-year temperature variability caused by purely natural phenomena (like El Niños and La Niñas). This makes it easier to identify a slowly-emerging signal arising from gradual, human-caused changes in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases,” Santer said.
The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
“One individual short-term trend doesn’t tell you much about long-term climate change,” Santer said. “A single decade of observational temperature data is inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving human-caused warming signal. In both the satellite observations and in computer models, short, 10-year tropospheric temperature trends are strongly influenced by the large noise of year-to-year climate variability.”
The research team is made up of Santer and Livermore colleagues Charles Doutriaux, Peter Caldwell, Peter Gleckler, Detelina Ivanova, and Karl Taylor, and includes collaborators from Remote Sensing Systems, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of Colorado, the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.K. Meteorology Office Hadley Centre, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
###
Source: http://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
The lower troposphere temperature has been flat now for 18 years on one dataset, RSS. No human effects can be seen. What say you Dr. Santer?
- Ignore your own folly?
- Say your paper was mistaken and publish a new goalpost mover paper saying that we really need 30 years?
- Or, will you simply admit that the posited warming isn’t happening?
I’m guessing you’ll go with #2.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They will just say they need two decades of data… or five decades or a century. If they magic number is longer than they’ll live no one can prove them wrong. Ta da!!
But, doesn’t this mean that they predicted correctly that a “hiatus” of roughly 17 years could occur? Surely there have been bigger climate science “fails” than this.
they dont care about the science. santer, wigley etc, are crooks. they have been manipulating outcomes for almost 20 years now. eg-
http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm
where they use the usual cherry picking to get the answer they want, and then use it to sell the idea to the world in 1995. Santer got the lead author of the IPCC 1995 report section “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” with that crap that was later proven to be so. he did not just back away from the obvious lie either making excuses that do NOT wash. what did he change in the IPCC report? HIS changes to the agreed draft statement say it all-
Agreed comments
1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
Santers replacements
1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”
2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
No.
Most likely a future date after they expect to have retired on pension.
“This makes it easier to identify a slowly-emerging signal arising from gradual, human-caused changes in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases,” Santer said.”
Slowly-emerging? Gradual? Flog this apostate forthwith. Everyone knows that there is nothing gradual about this. It is virtually instantaneous. Unprecedented! Worse than we thought.
Isn’t it time we muzzle these Koch brothers paid for oil company shills like Santer?
How is that a “failure” of peer-reviewed climate science? It was a reasonable paper that provides useful information. The “failure”, if that is the right word, is that the climate science of 1998 and earlier did not predict the “hiatus”, but the “failure” was the over-reliance on untested models.
That is a fascinating argument. When a climate scientist claims that the earth is warming and it doesn’t then the problem is a failure to predict the hiatus in warming, not the failure of the prediction of warming itself. This could revolutionize science. All future failures to predict events are actually just failures of timing and, as such, no theory can ever be disproved. If only the flat earthers had figure this out. They could still be in business.
Love it! Logic crushes dogma
+10
Silly goose, the paper was a success! “When a climate scientist claims that the earth is warming…” tthen he paper is a success! The next paper and the one after that will “claim that the earth is warming” and they too will be successes. That is the product they are paid to produce, when they produce it, they get paid and that is a SUCCESS!!! (Screw the rest of humanity. I got my paycheck, my BMW and fawning fans. I’m good.)
So when NASA fails to land a rocket on the moon it wasn’t a failure of the maths but a failure of the moon being in the right place.
Ooh, I think NASA’s actually done that with Mars probes
Science here sounds like a Government program, that refuses to go away — despite failures
I agree. The paper says “at least.” So he’ll NOT acknowledge a mistake; climate scientists don’t do that. He’ll simply say, “Well, now that we have exceeded the minimum time necessary, we may eventually begin to see evidence that the theory (sic) needs to be examined. Or not. So far, such evidence is not visible and probably will not appear for many years, if ever.” Shazam! Santer will just go into denial.
Even if they insist on moving the goalposts it will not matter much. The elephant in the room is the continued divergence of the IPCC’s temperature projections V observations. That is not an easy one to get out of.
I’m inferring that you take exception to the peer-review part of that description. The fact is that peer review is being held up as the gold standard because it supposedly protects against incorrect results through consensus. The fact that the predictions of 1998 have been empirically falsified indicates that peer review is no real protection against being wrong. Failure is a synonym for wrong, so Anthony’s description is entirely correct. The prediction of climate science was wrong (failed) and it was peer reviewed, so peer-reviewed climate science failed.
Peer review is definitely no protection against being wrong.
All peer review does is ensure that the paper/research project complies with prevailing orthodoxies.
It’s conservative, providing some protection against snake oil merchants; water powered cars, anti-gravity etc but works against the acceptance of new ideas such as the germ theory of disease, plate tectonics or meteor impact as a cause of extinction.
If the new view provides a better explanation of a phenomenon it will eventually prevail.
Where education is lacking old views tend to hang on.
Witchcraft is viewed as a reality in much of the world.
It’s conservative alright … providing protection for charlatans, ‘wind energy’ powered cars, ant-science, etc.
Proper peer review will improve a paper, but in climate science the pejorative term “pal review” aptly describes the review process: if you uphold the models then you are a “pal” and you pass through the gate.
There was no period where the rate of warming was close to or less than 0 for a greater period than a few years after 1975. http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/derivative/mean:120
With an exponentially increasing human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, there would be less chance of natural variations in the climate. The failure of the peer reviewed process is that the reviewers didn’t insist that the modelling was crap even after 14 years of cessation of warming.
less chance of natural variations in the climate negating the warming.
Please show links to evidence of ‘exponentially increasing human contribution to CO2 to the atmosphere’.
Mac the Knife
October 3, 2014 at 8:47 pm
Please show links to evidence of ‘exponentially increasing human contribution to CO2 to the atmosphere’.
Mauna Loa ? Hawaii
Stephen Richards
Mac the Knife requested
And you have replied
Sorry, but no.
The Mauna Loa data is here.
It shows that during each year the atmospheric CO2 varies by more than an order of magnitude greater than the annual human emission of CO2. The annual increase is the residual of the seasonal variation. And the annual increase is equivalent to about half of the human emission but they don’t correlate: in some years the rise is almost nothing and in other years the rise is similar to the total human emission.
It is a stretch to say that the Mauna Loa data is – of itself – evidence that any of the increase to atmospheric CO2 is a result of the “human contribution” and it certainly is not “evidence of ‘exponentially increasing human contribution to CO2 to the atmosphere’.”
Richard
It certainly throws the correlation between CO2 and temperature into serious doubt.
Stephen, I think you should think a bit carefully about your use of the word “exponentially”. In my understanding this means that an exponential fit to the data is significantly superior to a linear or perhaps quadratic fit. Why not go ahead with the Mauna Loa data set and compute the best parameters for these three alternative models. I don’t use R, but can do these things. You will need to think about the within year (regular seasonal) changes, and how to handle the lack of fit that they will introduce to any model hoping to fully describe the (monthly) observations.
I agree. I do have one complaint. That sun baked mayonnaise chicken you served last night made me a bit ill. Pass the Pepto please.
I read an article on the AIP website today called “How To Deal With Climate Change” by Paul Higgins.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/67/10/10.1063/PT.3.2548
The second paragraph says “People are causing Earth’s climate to change. Natural factors like solar variability and volcanoes may have also exerted a slight warming or cooling influence recently, but they are on top of the human contribution and small by comparison. 1 , 2 That conclusion is extremely solid scientifically because it comes from multiple independent lines of evidence. ”
I commented about the merits of that claim given how models have not shown skill in predicting temperatures thus far. Someone else later commented “The author should spend more time educating the professional members of his own society, a frightening number of whom are anti-science and do not believe in man-made climate change. Very unsettling, indeed.”
These people are so annoying!
Reply:
so, you deny the evidence of history, to insist that humans cause climate change.
you deny that climate changes for any other reason than human beings. you deny that that ice ages occur naturally, that warming occurs naturally.
you deny that any of this climate change occurred. you deny that it was very rapid, over a matter of just a few decades, temperatures changes as much as 10 degrees, while current temperatures have changed less than 2 degrees over 150 years.
you deny all of this, and thus you are a climate change deniers.
Paul Higgins’s has a PhD in what? That article is one of the sorriest examples of clear thinking that I’ve read in a long time. It’s high school level, and I’m probably insulting some highschoolers.
How thrilling! Such adherence to the blind deluded view of the world of anti-science climate fear mongers.
Untested models? How about;
sad math imitating code concocted simulations of what the alarmists ‘want’ to happen so they can continue their sad mockeries of science.
In the real world where honest scientists, engineers, physicists, chemists, finance, astronomers, geologists, etc. develop and utilize computer models to better understand their areas of science; not to make predictions!
Imagine a world where any of the honest users of models made predictions which then failed not just partially, but absolutely and completely?
That world is this world and people sue and get sued when they’re promised that rainbow or terror at the end of the model rainbow and the prediction fails. People expend energy, personally precious resources and funds because of the predictions.
In an honest business world, predictions, especially certain predictions are treated as guarantees and the predictors are considered culpable.
Which is why the honest only use models to assist themselves and their co-workers with a better understanding, not to make ‘predictions’.
A less than honest world is where people insist their models are ‘the true models’ even as they coach their language to provide CYA and disguise their dishonesty. There are reasons why snake oils salespeople are ‘run out of town on a rail’. (When most railed fences utilized split rail fences, this was a most uncomfortable way to leave town with splinters on private parts).
That the catastrophic purveyors of false models no matter their intent, insist their models predict anything and refuse to consider other possibilities, well they’re definitely not amongst the honest whether businessmen, scientists, researchers or politicians.
Yes, I go along with that.
However, once the data shows that the paper is wrong in some material respect, then it is incumbent upon the researchers to modify their views taking contemporary data into account.
It remains at least logically possible that there is some explanation for the ‘pause’ which does not require the original conjecture(s) to be scrapped.
But I’ve not seen anything yet from these researchers addressing these issues. That is with one exception:
Ben San ter postulates that the heat energy is going into the ‘deep oceans’. No plausible mechanism has been describ ed.
You are correct, it isn’t failure of peer-reviewed climate science. Santer et al said that they would need 17 years of temperatures to ascertain if there was a human signal in the temperature record. They’ve had 18 and there is no evidence of a human signal, according to their science. So, if their peer reviewed paper was correct we will now see them telling the world that there is no human signal in the temperature record. Won’t we? Or will they deny that their peer reviewed scientific forecasts is correct, or move the goal posts? Which? I’m betting on silence, followed by goal post moving if forced to speak.
Goalpost mover for sure. They said “at least”. Had they said “17 or more” it would be a different story. But they said “at least”. So now they will just say, “yeah, that’s what we told you the first time…we need 30 years…that’s at least 17 – no contradiction.”
Back when I was in grade school I was taught Climate is the average weather over 30 years. With the plateau at now over 18 years and getting so close to 30, I am wondering if the World Climate has ever been so stable. We might be living in the most stable climate in recorded history. That is extremely unlikely to occur which means it was caused by AGW. Lol
I second that.
Kinda like the top (or bottom) of a sine wave…
I think 30 is used for statistical testing reasons: any smaller sample and you have to use a “t” distribution test. Presumably that 30 refers to a random sample, and years are somewhat correlated – you get strings of warmer or wetter than average years and strings of cooler or dryer than average years rather than temps and rainfall jumping all over the place each year. I don’t think a 30 year climate test meets the 30 random samples requirement for statistical testing.
For more on this , check out Koutsoyiannis’ website here.
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/
Both “Watts Up With That” and “Climate Audit” have a few previous columns to Koutsoyiannis , who pointed out that climate factors tend to follow a “Hurst” distribution rather than a “Normal” distribution.
Jared says:
We might be living in the most stable climate in recorded history.
There is little doubt about that:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
It’s a bit hard to see any variation in the data considering that:
1. It’s vertical axis is more than twice as big as the data it portrays;
2. It uses absolute values starting from zero rather than easier to see anomalies;
3. It uses a Fahrenheit scale rather than the Celsius scale in which the data are published.
When someone goes to the trouble of adding an unnecessarily large scale to a vertical axis and converting data that is published as anomalies and in Celsius into absolute values in Fahrenheit I get suspicious that they’re trying to hide something.
This perhaps? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
DavidR’s griping notwithstanding, this is much closer to a representative graph of temperature history than any product you’re ever going to see from any of the ‘establishment’ organizations.
DavidR gets suspicious when he sees too large a range on the y-axis. I get suspicious when it’s too small.
Option 4, he’ll wait until his comment is 17 years old to respsond…
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature.”
Since AGW scientists moan about the public not taking them seriously, I will sooth their fretted brow and say:
Humans have caused a welcome pause in rising temperatures, leading to a greening planet largely devoid of frequent or rising catastrophic temperatures or seriously inclement weather events. We shall call this the double decade of benevolent human provenance. The entire populace of the world owes themselves a pat on the back and should march into the future doing exactly what they did these past two decades to calm a jittery planet. Good job.
There. I’ve taken these author’s sciencey words and dedicated gami…er…lab res….uh….mod…um…emails! Yes. Emails…and, and, group discussions and consensusses seriously. Very seriously.
Too bad Santer et al didn’t apply the 17-year qualification to their own modeling. They might have looked like professionals.
Every bit of weather, however short term, proves CAGW to them.
No amount of climate, however long term, will disprove it for them.
Or to put it another way – if they weren’t reasoned into it, they aren’t going to be reasoned out of it. It is the religion of their tribe.
Very well put. As scientists or engineers we all find it hard to believe reasoning isn’t the answer….and when it doesn’t work it produces a great deal of frustration and at times anger. But your words, though simple, are very “reasonable” and seemingly self-evident.
Magic is achieved by reasonable and seemingly self-evident observations that are incorrect.
+1
We are fighting the wrong battle: climate change is not proven or disproven with temperature measurements. The proof of climate change is found in the gathering of walruses (walri?) and other such events obviously linked to CO2 concentration.
Lol! Events like Walri, ISIS and volcanoes !
Don’t forget ebola.
Good one!
Some estimate that the number of ‘walri’ has doubled since the 1950’s.
No wonder they are running out of places to put a beach blanket!
Please pardon the juvenility, but while sitting on my throne, I concluded that #2 just about sums it up.
+2
No doubt that Ben Santer will want to “beat up” anyone who disagrees with whatever response he comes up with.
OMG, what sheer pleasure that would be!
They will never, ever admit they were wrong. Goalposts will be moved. Whole playing fields will be changed. It doesn’t matter what kind of evidence is presented. They could be hip-deep in snow in the middle of June and they will not admit they were wrong. The climate could cool for the next 20 years (which it will) and they still will not admit they were wrong. They will never admit that they were wrong. They will go to their graves believing that CO2 emissions cause catastrophic climate change. It is mass hysteria. It is religion. They do not practice science.
Sadly, I think Alan is correct. It’s human nature to not to admit to a mistake, and god knows its rife amongst scientits (sic). Over the next few years, the AMO will kick in, and temps in the NH will actually fall. But the liarists and scientits will just say that the ‘pause’ is continuing, and warming will resume stronger than ‘evah’. A good religion will never admit to its mistakes (got to love the Holy Trinity!) and climate science is in every way, a religion.
All the more urgent for Obama to quickly force us into a binding “climate” treaty by some back-door, executive ordure, razzle-dazzle machination. That is his highest priority after gun confiscation and socialized medicine.
A basic premise of the Constitution of the United States is the separation of church and state. I agree that climate science seems to be a religion. I’m not sure what the legal definition of “church” is, but I would love to see government sued for breach of the Constitution due to clearly biased support of a particular church – the church of cagw. I think this could get some broad public support if a few congressmen would decide to push it. At the very least it could force a change in the way that grants are divvied out, to ensure the research is unbiased.
Alan, seconded. Goalposts have been moved many times. Colder NH winters = global warming, increased Antarctic sea ice extent = global warming.
What’s their signature for Global Cooling? A heatwave?
Any type of weather. The are dodging being tarred and feathered and I think it’s kind of sad. It’s like looking at a child with milk around their mouth who says they didn’t drink the milk.
They have always covered all their bases. Once you understand them it’s child’s play.
There are many examples of this kind of double speak. Like I said Climastrologists have all their bases covered.
“They will never, ever admit they were wrong”
Wrong. They can’t ever admit they were wrong.
If they were so convincing that governments around the world bought into AGW, what would the consequences be if it turns out to be not true? I would say catastrophic.
Consider a (flawed) analogy: Dr Andrew Wakefield. He made the claim that the MMR vaccine caused autism. Any developmental psychologist could disprove that statement in a flash, but that wasn’t the news story. The results were largely predictable: large areas of the population skipped the MMR, with the result now being measles outbreaks not seen for maybe a hundred years.
The climbdown was equally predictable: Big medical journals have major egg on their faces, and a general public that doesn’t know what to believe (look at the still-growing Anti-Vax movements and the difficulty stamping them out).
If you want another example, look at the much-touted stem cell research from Japan. The head researcher killed himself when the fraud was uncovered, with stem cell research thrown back years as a result.
As much as I hate it, the best way for AGW to die a death is to slowly attenuate it over time and let everyone involved get out with as much skin intact as possible. Some, like Mr Mann, have not only hoisted their petard to the mask of AGW, but nailed it there so firmly they will never escape the stain, but they are the minority. Governments especially need to manage the climbdown, but that is already happening as part of the natural political process. Look at Australia: in 2007 climate change was “the greatest moral challenge of our time”, now the country is unwinding green damage to the economy. And there’s a clue: the damage to the economy is being neatly pinned on the greens themselves; the major political parties are washing off the stains. I don’t know about the US; Germany seems to be heading down the part of looking after their economy; as does the UK.
But also notice: AGW was never “wrong”; it’s just not talked about as much.
As Worf said in DS9 (regarding the Klingons of the Kirk era), “We do not discuss it with outsiders”.
Germany plans to increase renewable solar & wind power to 35% of their power supply by 2016. Their energy prices have increased by over 60% over the last few years. They have & will seriously harm their economy. Several large companies are moving industrial operations outside of Germany because of this. See http://online.wsj.com/articles/germany-proposes-higher-green-energy-surcharge-on-industrial-companies-1403631684
Yep. Down the memory hole, with all the other failed prognostications of doom of years past.
“The head researcher killed himself when the fraud was uncovered”
A culture with honor.
Post-normal science uses consensus in lieu of empirical research and prediction combined. If a scientist makes a prediction, then they assume responsibility for their work. Hence the stampede by climate scientivists to “projections”. The great thing about post-normal consensus is that no one source is responsible for falsified predictions. Every one of the 97%, (or 77 out of 79, whatever) has his/her arse covered by lack of accountability.
Professor Peter Wadhams has over the years PREDICTED that the Arctic will be ice free no later than 2016. This year he tried to push it out to FIVE YEARS OR MORE, but I got his number.
Links for quotes from Professor Peter Wadhams
We will have to wait another 30 years before the data is old enough to be adjusted down historically and then it will be clear that there has been no hiatus at all and, in fact, it was always worse than we thought. Until then we must continue to act with great caution and build many more wind turbines. ;>)
The WFT index (Mean of HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS) is:
Last 30 years: +0.158 K/decade
Last 18 years: +0.061 K/decade
Last 17 years: +0.025 K/decade
Last 13 years: -0.015 K/decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/plot/wti/last:204/trend/plot/wti/last:216/trend/plot/wti/last:156/trend
By 2020, the 30 year trend will be less than 0.05 K/decade, which basically no warming.
0.05 K/decade is probably fully explicable by climate “scientist” data molestation.
As long as the data is over 18 yrs….it’s consensual and legal ….no? /sarc
If you look at the long term HADCRUT4, it is apparent that we are already into the next declining phase.
Per so-called “climate scientists”, there is a very simply way of calculating how long a no-warming trend must last to be significant. We have already had an 18 year pause, but it needs to continue another “X” years to be significant.
X = (Estimated year date of retirement) minus (current year date)
I should think that the established lack of a troposphere hot spot developing as predicted would have been sufficient years ago to raise serious questions about the physics of the warming theory.
It seems that physics isn’t necessary when you’ve got faith.
They spent a lot of energy trying to show that all weather balloon data was systematically wrong. I think the BBC still believes that.
“lack of a troposphere hot spot”
I think that’s what kicked off the skeptic movement proper in the first place. The real problem for warmists was always that one doesn’t need to be a scientist to see they got so much of their work wrong.
Where do we send the bill for compensation from runaway policy cost effects?
Plus I’d like to sue somebody for causing all the panic during an extended period of stable climate, mankind was robbed of the ability to enjoy it by all the doom and gloom assertions
Yeah but the hypothesis = MM CO2 causes catastrophic (or any at all) warming – was total bo99ocks in the first place,
Natural warming and a natural born pause is no mystery. Though, the question is, is it a harbinger of more cooling to come or, something – even a little bit colder than that?
His theorizing was Chicken Little style and only really for the birds, now, is there any chance of Santer eating crow?
They are already changing the goal posts. “Climate disruption” is going to be the message, replacing “Global Warming”. I still cannot understand why they deny higher CO2 will benefit world population, especially those in impoverished regions.
I wonder how many of John Cook’s 97% of scientists will put their hands up and say oops I was wrong.
Since they’re fictitious, the number has no relevance. Besides, if they’re friends of Cook, they’d put up their hands with a stiff arm and say something completely different.
Both of ’em
Obviously he meant 17 METRIC years.
#2 appears likely, yet as Christopher Monckton has pointed out, it has NOT been warming longer than it warmed.
Being in love with AGW means never having to say you’re sorry.
Or wrong.
We have itchy and scratchy.
2012
NOAA’s ’15 year statement’ from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office ‘insignificance’ claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/
Here is someone who is worried.
Wouldn’t you think that instead of worrying that they would be relieved that a catastrophe may not occure?
Jim, this is a measure of how sick with fear and power the alarmists are.
============
Jim Francisco said:
Wouldn’t you think that instead of worrying that they would be relieved that a catastrophe may not occure?
EXACTLY!!! It just goes to prove that these guys are actually “rooting for” higher temperatures. They’re way more interested in being right than they are with anything else. It really makes me question the lengths they might go to in order to preserve their own industry and future.
Oh Gavin!
It’s all falling apart I think. We need a rescue package brought together by sceptics for these chaps. They are called rat holes.
Instead of donkey holes?
How about manhole covers? That way they’re out of sight from now on.