Global warming is still on the ‘Great Shelf’

Annual report on global temperature change to December 2014

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Global warming is not happening at anything like the predicted rate. The divergence between prediction and reality is now severe. Despite revisions in the terrestrial datasets calculated to cause an unmeasured increase in the warming rate of recent decades, the gulf between the exaggerated predictions in the models and the far less exciting observed reality is in danger of becoming an abyss.

All five major monthly global surface or lower-troposphere anomaly datasets, the latest being HadCRUT4, have now reported their results for 2014. Time, then, for our WUWT annual update on temperature trends. As usual, we shall look at the three principal terrestrial surface datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC) and the two satellite datasets (RSS and UAH).

First, to determine the underlying global warming trend as fairly as possible it is necessary to allow for the ocean-oscillation cycles of 30 years’ warming followed by 30 years’ cooling . The Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere & Ocean at the University of Washington says that the year 2000 marked the transition from the positive or warming phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to the negative or cooling phase:

clip_image002

Using JISAO’s dates and taking the mean of the three terrestrial temperature datasets, the global temperature record from 1890 to 2014 inclusive shows warming during the positive PDO phases but more or less stable temperatures during the negative phases, illustrating very clearly the influence of the PDO on temperatures:

clip_image004

The warming trend of 0.92 Cº since 1890, equivalent to less than three-quarters of a degree per century, occurred almost entirely within the two positive PDO phases.

To establish a fair estimate of the recent trend, one must take the same number of years either side of a phase-change in the PDO. Thus, the period from 1987 to 2014 has 14 years’ positive and 14 years’ negative PDO. The trend on the mean of the three terrestrial datasets since 1987 is 0.41 Cº, equivalent to less than 1.5 Cº/century:

clip_image006

On the combined RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature datasets, the trend is statistically indistinguishable from the surface trend:

clip_image008

Taking the mean of all five datasets gives the fairest indication of the underlying global warming trend, which is less than 1.4 Cº/century, or below half the central rate predicted by the IPCC on its “business-as-usual” scenario in 1990:

clip_image010

The individual graphs for each of the five major global-temperature anomaly datasets for the period 1987-2014 are now given, so as to dispel the usual accusations that the data have been cherry-picked:

clip_image012

clip_image014

clip_image016

clip_image018

clip_image020

Starting the trend in 2001, at the turn of the millennium, shows the effect of the negative phase of the PDO in slowing down the warming rate. The rate from 1987-2014 was 0.39 Cº, equivalent to 1.38 Cº/century, but the rate from 2001-2014 was just 0.03 Cº, equivalent to 0.24 Cº century. It is possible, of course, that the gradual decline in solar activity after the near Grand Maximum of 1925-1995, peaking in 1960, may have contributed to the slowdown in warming:

clip_image022

Last year I reported that the trend from 2001-2013 was zero. So the current year has kicked up the warming rate by about a thirtieth of a degree.

There has been no full-blown el Niño Southern Oscillation event since 2010, when McLean, de Freitas & Carter reported that it is the ratio of the frequency of el Niño to that of la Niña events, and not global warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, that has proven to be the prime determinant of global temperature variability in recent decades. However, el Niño conditions were prevalent (just about) during the second half of 2014. This may have been enough to cause the slight uptick in what could otherwise have been a flat trend.

CO2 concentration (the characteristic gray dog-tooth curve in gray on the graphs) has continued to rise at its established rate of about 2 ppmv yr–1, but neither the previously-committed or “in-the-pipeline” warming imagined by the IPCC nor the new warming driven by continuing greenhouse-gas enrichment of the atmosphere has driven global temperature up at an alarming or dangerous rate.

The continuing absence of global warming, first admitted by the IPCC in February 2013 in the person of its climate-science chairman, Dr.Pachauri, has at last led the IPCC to abandon the computer models on which it had previously relied without question. It is worth recalling, at Fig. 2, the graphs from the second-order or pre-final draft (upper panel) and final draft (lower panel) of the Fifth Assessment Report to demonstrate not only how substantial the reduction in the mid-range estimate is but also how visibly far below the models’ predictions the IPCC’s new best estimate is:

clip_image024

clip_image026

Figure 2. Near-term projections in the pre-final or “second-order” draft of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (upper panel) show the mid-range estimate of 0.7 K over 30 years. In the final or published draft (lower panel), the former mid-range estimate became the high-end estimate of the new range, and the IPCC’s “expert assessment”, replacing for the first time its reliance on models’ output, was to the effect that about 0.4 K global warming would occur over the coming 30 years.

This new and much-reduced best estimate, equivalent to 0.13 K decade–1, is a little below the 0.14 K decade–1 that was observed over the preceding 30 years, despite continuing increases in CO2 concentration. The IPCC is now actually predicting a standstill, or even a little slowdown, in the rate of global warming.

Now that a full decade has passed since January 2005, the benchmark month for the predictions of near-term global warming to 2050 in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, it is time to take stock with a comparison between the rate of temperature change the IPCC predicted by the IPCC in 2005 and the rate of temperature change that has been observed:

clip_image028

The IPCC’s prediction is that there should have been a sixth of a degree of warming over the past decade. However, there has barely been any at all.

Considering that governments have placed heavy reliance upon the IPCC, and that the environmental-extremist movement has repeatedly said that it was more certain about the future course of global temperature than about anything else in science, the failure of global temperatures to keep pace even with the IPCC’s latest and much-reduced global-warming projections is remarkable.

The failure extends upward even to the climatically-crucial mid-troposphere, where the predicted temperature “hot spot” (which I had the honor to name) has not appeared in observed reality, despite some disfiguring revisionist attempts to make it appear ex post facto.

The failure is evident in all 73 of the models examined by Christy (2013), not only confirming the models’ propensity to exaggerate warming but also reinforcing the observations showing that there has been no global warming for a decade and a half, since theory would lead us to expect a near-tripling of the tropical surface warming rate in the tropical mid-troposphere if there had been any global warming, but no such tripling has occurred:

clip_image030

The question arises: why were very nearly all runs of very nearly all models so very wrong? And why were the errors, almost without exception, in the direction of monstrous but profitable exaggeration?

What are the models missing? Obsessed with radiation from greenhouse forcings and questionable temperature feedbacks, they ignore or poorly parameterize many important climate processes and undervalue the net cooling effect of the following events:

Ø the “parasol effect” of growth in emerging nations’ unfiltered particulate aerosols;

Ø the non-radiative transports such as tropical afternoon convection;

Ø evaporation from the surface, which is observed to occur at thrice the rate per degree of warming that the models predict;

Ø the decline in solar activity since 1960;

Ø the recent fall in the ratio of el Niño to la Niña oscillations;

Ø the current 30-year “cooling” phase of the Pacific Decadal oscillation;

Ø the cooling effect of the recent double-dip la Niña;

Ø the ending late in 2001 of an 18-year period with less global cloud cover than normal (Pinker et al., 2005); and

Ø the natural variability that has given us many long periods without warming in the past 150 years.

All of these influences (of which only the first is manmade) could well have exercised between them a cooling effect enough to match the warming influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The models, however, either did not make sufficient allowance for these thermostatic influences or tended to exaggerate the warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, or both.

The models have been tuned to base their predictions almost exclusively on Man’s influence. Also, the models’ handling of temperature feedbacks may have led to an undue tripling of the global warming rate via the use of a system-gain equation borrowed from electronic circuitry – an equation that has no place in the climate (Monckton of Brenchley et al., 2015, Science Bulletin 60(1): www.scibull.com).

The models’ undue focus on and exaggeration of a single and probably minor cause of warming, while undervaluing or altogether neglecting natural net-negative forcings, has been their undoing.

But the central reason for the models’ error is that they were tuned and inter-compared and tuned again until they all told more or less the same story of ever-faster warming and ever-more-lurid disasters. The curse of intercomparison has brought the models more and more into line with one another and farther and farther away from observed reality.

The very small fluctuations in global temperature over the past 750 million years, and especially over the past 810,000 years, when absolute global mean surface temperature varied by little more than 3 Cº or 1% either side of the long-run mean, rule out the absurdly extreme feedback loop gains implicit (and very carefully unstated) in the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity:

clip_image032

More worryingly for the credibility of the IPCC, even the direct warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases that should have occurred if its basic understanding of climate dynamics were right has not been observed.

The CO2 radiative forcing over the period 2005-2013 – if the IPCC is right – should have been 5.35 ln(400 ppmv/378 ppmv), or 0.30 W m–2. The IPCC assumes that CO2 accounts for just 70% of all manmade greenhouse-gas forcings, so make that 0.43 W m–2. Then, to allow for warming “in the pipeline”, at around 0.6 of the 2.8 K that the Fourth Assessment Report predicted for this century, bring up the total predicted manmade forcing since 2005 to 0.48 W m–2.

Multiply this alleged manmade forcing by 0.31 K W–1 m2, the instantaneous or Planck climate-sensitivity parameter. Even ignoring any feedbacks of any kind, the total global warming that should have happened since 2005, according to the IPCC’s methodology, is 0.15 K. With feedbacks, make that at least 0.2 K. Yet none has happened.

Two years have passed since the Qatar climate conference at which the inadvertent delegate from Burma announced, to shrieks of astonishment, horror, and dismay from his fellow-delegates, that there had been no global warming for 16 years, and that perhaps it was time to call in some independent scientists to do a review of the science to make sure that these increasingly unimportant climate conferences were still heading in the right direction.

At that time, The Pause was very little known, for it did not fit the official story-line and had gone almost entirely unreported in the mainstream news media. So the delegates shrieked in fury, and in fear that their gravy-train had finally toppled over the Stanton curve at more than the mandatory 15 mph.

How long will the now well-known Great Pause continue? Professor Lindzen answered that one during an important lecture in Colombia four years ago. He said the probability of the world being warmer than the present in 50 years’ time is one-half. It is as likely that the world will not be warmer than today as it is that it will be.

For it remains possible that our true influence on the climate is so minuscule that the continuing diminution in solar activity that is now widely expected will be more than enough to neutralize all our greenhouse-gas forcings for many decades to come.

Finally, many have commented that calling the long failure of global temperatures to rise the “Great Pause” suggests that global warming will one day resume. In truth, we don’t know whether we’re heading up the mountain or down the mountain. So let us from now on call it the “Great Shelf”:

clip_image034

For in the light of the evidence presented here it is to the Great Shelf that the current international program of costly, ineffective measures to make minuscule global warming go away should be permanently consigned.

Advertisements

401 thoughts on “Global warming is still on the ‘Great Shelf’

  1. Well I read somewhere that the “Burmese Python” was actually some British Lord in disguise; well at least he was sitting in dis guys chair at an open mike.

    Well you leave a vacancy while you fuel up at the bar, and you are just inviting British Lords to use the premises while you are indisposed.

    And thank you for the 2014 wrap up MofB.

    g

  2. I gotta go; this place just got invaded by a flock of geese; well geezers anyhow. I just hope they don’t ask what I do here.

    I’m sure they are not NASA types, but maybe medics of some sort.

    G

      • Probably the same place you’re making money on the merry go round of vat taxes from carbon credits. Your not located in Denmark by any chance?

      • Ad hominem, the fallacy of choice from a warmist. Be a good boy and drink your hemlock, Sock.

        Neat. Never occurred to me Socrates (the real one) was executed with the poison hemlock of carrot family. To me hemlock was the western hemlock tree, Tsuga heterophylla.

        Now, I’d rather refrain from going as down as our Socrates.

      • I don’t find your comment in the form of an ad hominem attack useful. Which part or parts of the analysis or data above do you believe to be in error? Would you please point to specifics/data from other sources for us that invalidate the facts presented here?

    • jajajaja I knew it wouldn’t take long…

      Hey TROll, warrenlb… where did YOU earn YOUR degree in physics?

      We’ve seen it all before, you gutless wretch.

      • The same goes double for you, David Socrates, since you are not only an anonymous little troll, but you are persistent.

      • It never takes long because there is a red- robed troupe constantly patrolling websites such as this, ready to pounce on any hint of deviation from AGW orthodoxy.

        The only difference from the Monty Python sketch is that we ALWAYS expect them.

      • warrenlb

        So, you are claiming that Cornell University teaches the fallacy that the truth of an argument is affected by the qualification(s) of the argument’s presenter.

        I cannot accept that Cornell teaches such a gross falsehood and would require evidence before I would accept that claim. Hence, I also don’t believe you when you claim you graduated in physics from Cornell University.

        Richard

      • warrenlb did not disagree with anything in the article he read well enough to comment on.
        It is not reasonable therefore to assume that he has any disagreement with the article at all.

        It is obvious that warrenlb was inquiring about the Lord’s education merely to praise that institution.

      • RWTurner, that’s a great challenge! We can see how warrenlb thinks, since he’s too frightened to submit an article here…

        …unless, of course, he’s overstepped in his claims.

    • I spent a lot of time in university and a lot of a students time is spent alone, with the books. 50 minutes with the professor twice a day then off on your own for the rest of the week (per class). I have spent thousands of hours in study, alone, with the books. All the University experience does is give you a piece of paper that says you once studied a subject, sometimes long ago and largely forgotten now.
      I study subjects on my own now for the purpose of learning the subject, for the purpose of working with my knowledge gained to solve real world problems. I most likely have spent enough time in studies over my years to earn 3 PhD’s.

      • I have a piece of paper for an MS in Computer Science from almost 35 years ago.
        Except for those extraordinary Climate Models, we all know that nothing has changed in computers in last 3 and 1/2 decades.

      • Computer science is my specialty. 35 years ago I was standing in line, at Simon Fraser University, behind the guy who didn’t do a test run of his code on the mainframe first before sending a run of his code to the printer and having streams of paper exiting the printer.

      • garymount,
        I know that guy. He put the page-break character in a loop. Then he had to refold a lot of paper. Young folks have never seen this – unlike snow!

      • GaryMount?

        What is a Gary Mount?

        Studying on your own is fine, excellent. It is those darned homework sets, hourly’s, mid-terms, lab reports, presentations, and above all Final Exams that this program lacks. Sure, you may have learned the same things Degree Holders learned, but can you establish this?

        WarrenLB,

        Maybe since you have a degree in Physics from Cornell you could explain to me how TOA temperatures could affect surface temperatures. You can say, “Re-radiation!” and then I will say, “Sadly, no, thermalization mid-troposphere instead.” You can say, “Shoulders of the bands!” and then I will say, “Sadly, no, saturation within a couple of meters of the surface.”

        What else will you say?

      • Michael Moon
        January 28, 2015 at 7:32 pm

        GaryMount?

        … Studying on your own is fine, excellent. It is those darned homework sets, hourly’s, mid-terms, lab reports, presentations, and above all Final Exams that this program lacks. Sure, you may have learned the same things Degree Holders learned, but can you establish this?

        At some point, every scientist and engineer has to become an autodidact. In fact, the goal of their education is to produce life long learners. You ask: “can you establish this?” It’s actually pretty easy. garymount uses his learning to solve real world problems. The solutions, as outlined on his CV, will speak louder than a freshly printed degree.

        garymount’s statement that he has spent enough time studying to earn three PhDs could be true as long as you consider only PhDs that can be done in three years. ;-)

    • Of course, the ”experts” have an impeccable record of always being right, particularly CAGW alarmist experts. They never get anything wrong. Experts with PhDs coming out their behinds. Same place they make their pronouncements.

      Eamon.

    • warrenib to MofB — Where did you earn your University degree in Physics?

      I will take it upon myself to answer for MofB — The same place Shakespeare earned his degree in English literature.

      Eugene WR Gallun

    • @warrenlb,

      Back atcha: Where did you earn yours? And in what? Theology?

      I notice that you have nothing whatever to support your hit ‘n’ run comment.

      Anthony invites readers to submit articles, and he doesn’t play favorites or limit the articles to any particular point of view. There are just more intelligent, thinking people on his side of the issue, so skeptical scientists like Lord Monckton post a lot of good articles.

      So, warrenlb, why don’t you submit your own article — instead of taking your juvenile pot-shots from the peanut gallery? Let’s see you defend your own True Belief for a change. I would love to see that train wreck!

      • “So, warrenlb, why don’t you submit your own article”

        I’d like to see that too, but not just for entertainment. One of these days, one side is going to be wrong.

      • >One of these days, one side is going to be (proven) wrong.
        I said that to a commie friend of mine. One of us has been led astray. He never presents science or facts, just emotion and a desire for one world government. I explained to him that he would not be one of the overlords, just probably receive a ticket for a nice train ride. He said that was fine by him, as long as we get the world gubment. So sad. Otherwise a bright guy.

    • Which one of the 7 parameters in Lord Monckton’s Pocket Calculator Calculation, that out performs all the IPCC climate models, is dependent on Lord Monckton having a degree in science? How would the equation or the parameters change if Lord Monckton had a MA in History as opposed to a Bsc in Physics?

    • I don’t find your comment in the form of an ad hominem question useful. Which part or parts of the analysis or data above do you believe to be in error? Would you please point to specifics/data from other sources for us that invalidate the facts presented here?

    • warrenlb: I wonder why you think a degree in physics might somehow be necessary to understand the science of global warming?

  3. Thank you again Christopher. Excellent.

    Slightly off topic, but just as I was about to type a longer reply, I’ve been stopped by significant UK earth tremor here in East Midlands between Stamford & Grantham. Is CAGW to blame? Our dog has gone bananas.

  4. Some interesting scaling in the plots with CO2 and temperature. CO2-concentration plotted in a way that implies a warming between 0.8 degree C (surface) and 1 degree (tropospher). During av period with an increase in CO2 level ~ 60 ppm. Which translates to an increase in forcing of 0.42 w/m2.

    Implication: 0.42 w/m2 should give an increase of temperature of 0.8 + degrees C.

    Some really interesting TCR number follows from that.

    Whoever said climate sensitivity must be low?

      • Could be even more than 0.8 degrees C, if you realize that if the downward trend of the LIA continued (with the precession of the equinox) until today, it would be closer to 0.9 degrees.

      • John M
        ..
        “So what caused the LIA? ”

        Re-read my post, and pay close attention to what i put inside of the parenthesis

        “if the downward trend of the LIA continued (with the precession of the equinox) “.

      • Oh! My God! David Socrates believes in the existence of the Little Ice Age!!! Now the Hockey Stick is really busted!!!!!

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • “…with the precession of the equinox…”

        You’re right, I missed that. I guess my eyes didn’t believe anyone in 2015 would think the LIA was caused primarily by the “precession of the equinox”.

        In any event, do you think the warming since the “precession of the equinox-caused LIA” is 100% due to CO2?

      • John M,

        Planet Earth is clearly telling us that climate sensitivity is very low. Despite the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, the planet’s temperature (T) has fluctuated only a *very* tiny 0.8ºC — in more than a century and a half!

        That is nothing. Even if we take the government’s temperature record at face value, that minuscule fluctuation is almost unprecedented in it’s small fluctuation over that long time frame.

        But at least ‘rooter’ has attempted an argument based on facts, which is far more than our usual 2 trolls did. I respect him for that.

    • One cannot use these graphs to read across from CO2 concentration to temperature change.

      And Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015) said climate sensitivity must be low, because the paleoclimate was remarkably stable, implying either a small feedback sum or a feedback amplification less extreme than that provided in the inapplicable Bode system-gain relation. If climate sensitivity were high, there should have been a lot more warming in the past two decades than there has been.

      • Well, why then don’t you scale your graphs accordingly. Scale them to reflect your calculations of climate sensitivity.

        That remarkably stable paleoclimate, does that include the warm MWP?

      • Rooter,

        It is clear that you have a fixation on the CO2 overlay and are intent on manipulating the discussion in the direction of the inference you want to make rather than anything the author “implied”, but since you seem to be the great keeper of the graphing scales, perhaps you’d like to comment on what this graph and scale “implies” the temperature anomoaly should have been in 2014.

        Since you seem to be of the opinion that all graph scales should be taken literally, and are quite offended when they’re not used the way you think they should be, I anxiously await your critique.

      • Hmm…

        Last week I was floundering around trying to get an image to post and failed miserably.

        Now, I was perfectly content to paste in a simple link, et voilà, the image appears!

        Sigh…I think I may just go back to papyrus and a quill pen. :)

      • Rooter,

        That graph is from a recent publication by one Michael Mann.

        And my question still is relevant.

      • John M:

        What is the problem with that graph? That the scaling is better and implies lower climate sensitivity?

        Don’t you like lower climate sensitivity?

      • If you like the scaling, then maybe you can tell me what it implies about the temperature anomaly in 2014 with co2 levels of 400 ppm.

        Since you appear a bit on the purposely obtuse side, I can tell you what it implies to me…a temperature anomaly much higher than was observed.

        And you’re right, why in the world would someone publish such a graph in Jan 2015, but then we can’t all be climate scientist geniuses.

      • Seems that you’ve now gone from being purposely obtuse to being vacuously abstruse.

        If you mean to imply that I don’t think CO2 has any impact on temperature, then you are wrong. It does appear, however, that the good Professor Mann took a brain-break when he put together that graph. Since you seem so intent on policing graphs and the scaling of axes, I thought you’d go right at it, but I guess your outrage at CO2 overlays is…selective.

        With regard to CO2’s impact on climate, I put it in the same category as dietary salt’s impact on blood pressure…no doubt, it can have some impact, but the science is by no means “settled”, and it certainly doesn’t mean I should yield to the “experts” without questioning the level of certainty regarding the quantitative impact, given that they don’t really know.

        Frankly, since I don’t know what the hell you meant by your comment, that’s the best I can do.

      • So to summarize: John M think it is objectionable to show the correlation between CO2 and temperature. It is objectionable to use a scaling that implies lower climate sensitivity.

        Why? Because it makes him think than teemperatuer will continue to rise?

      • I’m sorry you are so befuddled by my simple questions that you now have to resort to speculating about my imaginary thoughts. Perhaps your emotional investment in needing to rigorously attach (“correlate”) CO2 to rising temperatures have caused you to conflate qualitative and quantitative issues. I will stand by my previous comments with regard to the state-of-play of CO2 and temperature. Read in particular my dietary salt analogy. And to be more clear, since this seems to be required with you, I fully expect temperatures to keep rising over a multi-decade timeframe, just not to the extent that the subject causes me to suck my thumb and cry myself to sleep.

        Now, back to my questions of you:

        1)Do you think all of the temperature rise since 1880 is due to CO2?
        2)When you look at Mann’s graph, what does your ability to read graphs tell you the anomaly should have been in 2014?

        Note that the answers to these simple questions do not require you to imagine what I or anyone might think.

    • Whoever said climate sensitivity must be low?

      Only a fool would ask such a question. Climate sensitivity is not determine by what anyone says.

      The bigger question is whether there is such a thing as climate sensitivity to CO2, because that assumes that climate is orbiting a CO2 attractor.

      Chaotic systems are not bound to increase simply because one of the attractors is increasing. Would earth’s orbit change if Jupiter doubled in mass? You have to be orbiting the attractor before it makes any immediate difference.

      Otherwise, if you are orbiting a different attractor, increasing the CO2 attractor has no effect, other than to slightly change the odds that you will be thrown out of orbit around your current attractor, to orbit a different attractor.

      That is why earth’s climate is so stable. Our climate is orbiting some long term attractors that remain virtually unchanged over hundreds of millions of years. These attractors are so large than no change in any other attractor can throw us out of orbit.

      Thus, the notion of climate sensitivity is a myth. Created from the assumption that climate is a linear system. Founded in the naive mathematics of the 1950’s, that believed we could predict everything using linear programming models.

      Even if a huge meteor impacts the earth and wipes out 90% of the life on earth, with the resultant change in temperatures and atmospheric composition, within a relatively short period of time the climate returns to where it was before.

      • rooter

        You say seemingly to yourself

        Then again; why the discrepancy between the low climate sensitivity and the scaling of these graphs? That is self contradictory.

        It would help those who read your musings to yourself if you were to explain the “discrepancy” you are pondering and if you were to say what “graphs” you are considering.

        Of course, there is nothing unusual in the thoughts you post being “self contradictory”, but if you post thoughts to here then it would be good if you were to say what those thoughts are about.

        Richard

    • rooter

      You ask

      Whoever said climate sensitivity must be low?

      I answer: the real world says climate sensitivity is low.

      Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
      Idso from surface measurements
      http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
      and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
      and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
      http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

      Richard

      • Then again; why the discrepancy between the low climate sensitivity and the scaling of these graphs? That is self contradictory.

      • Warren LB should understand that several of those writing here, have contributed reviewed papers to the learned journals. And when we do so we are never asked what our qualifications are. What matters is the quality of our research. The standard technique of the followers of Saul Alinsky is that they have had insufficient instruction in logic, so they resort to fallacies such as the ad-hominem fallacy, a shoddy sub-species of the fundamental logical fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi.

    • Rooter – perhaps you could have a separate conversation with David Socrates to explain to him your views on the non-existence of the Little Ice Age.

      • Have a seperate conversation with Monckton who says paleoclimate was remarkably stable. How well does a warm MWP and cold LIA fit into that remarkably stable paleoclimate.

      • Rooter will find its answer to its question about the stability of the pas 1000 years’ climate by reading our paper at scibull.com and noting the interval of paler lunatic temperature change inferred from Jouzel et Al. (2007).

    • rooter,

      Implication: 0.42 w/m2 should give an increase of temperature of 0.8 + degrees C.

      Some really interesting TCR number follows from that.

      2 °C/Wm^-2 IS a pretty interesting number. That can’t be right … let’s see … ah:

      One cannot use these graphs to read across from CO2 concentration to temperature change.

      Well Monckton, here’s this plot from above:

      Is it not your intent for us to read that plot and infer something about the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature change?

      • You point out another discrepancy. In this graph the scaling is quite different.

        Another issue is of course from where does these forcing estimates come. Impossible to check.

      • rooter,

        For anthro forcing he appears to be using ΔF = 5.35 * ln(C/C0), then dividing by 0.7. I think he comes up with the deltas by regressing on monthly data and multiplying the slope by number of years in the interval. When I do it against annual data, I get reasonably close to his calcs:

        Interval ΔCO2 Δ"Anthro"
        1890-1924 11.32 0.29
        1925-1946 7.29 0.18
        1947-1976 22.56 0.54
        1977-2000 36.49 0.79
        2001-2014 28.86 0.57

        Where ΔCO2 is in ppmv and Δ”Anthro” in W/m^2.

        Applying the 70% assumption across 125 years of history is not the most defensible thing in the world to do, but this article has worse issues. For me, it went completely off the rails with: Then, to allow for warming “in the pipeline”, at around 0.6 of the 2.8 K that the Fourth Assessment Report predicted for this century, bring up the total predicted manmade forcing since 2005 to 0.48 W m–2.

        … which is just silly to the extreme. How can the planet be expected to reach an equilibrium temperature range if F is still has a positive delta? At an ever-increasing rate no less?

      • The anthro proportion does not follow from that Brandon. My question was where does the forcing estimates come from?

      • Well Gates,
        What inferences would you make? For instance, what would you infer from the first two segments of the graph, the period from 1890- 1946?

      • Alan Robertson

        Your question to Gates is not fair because he cannot copy&paste an answer from elsewhere.

        Richard

      • rooter,

        My question was where does the forcing estimates come from?

        Then I’m missing some nuance in your question because it’s evident to me that Lord M. is using IPCC-published formulae and estimates for his calcs.

        Alan Robertson,

        For instance, what would you infer from the first two segments of the graph, the period from 1890- 1946?

        That the calculated anthropogenic forcing alone does not adequately explain multi-decadal temperature trends.

      • Mr Gates shows a graph of mine that shows no CO2 scale and no CO2 data and, therefore, tells us nothing directly about the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature change. Instead, it demonstrates in a visually simple way that in the 20th century the two periods of quite rapid warming were coincident with the naturally-occurring positive or “warming” phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

        From the fact that during the negative or “cooling” phases of the PDO there was no drop in temperature suggests some underlying factor or combination of factors that is exerting a gentle upward pressure on global temperatures. However, the graph tells us nothing about what that factor or combination of factors is.

      • Monckton,

        Mr Gates shows a graph of mine that shows no CO2 scale and no CO2 data and, therefore, tells us nothing directly about the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature change.

        For each interval, the graph shows an estimated anthropogenic forcing trend. Based on the text of your essay, I infer that you arrived at those calculations by applying the formula 5.35 * ln(C/C0) / 0.7. From there we’re just one constant away from estimating transient climate response across the entire 125 years of the instrumental data. This being such an obvious next step, I don’t see that it’s at all out of bounds for me to suggest that your plot is saying something about the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.

        From the fact that during the negative or “cooling” phases of the PDO there was no drop in temperature suggests some underlying factor or combination of factors that is exerting a gentle upward pressure on global temperatures.

        And yet no attempt has been made to quantify PDO’s net effect on global temperature.

        However, the graph tells us nothing about what that factor or combination of factors is.

        Well yes, that’s what happens when one begins an interesting analysis and fails to complete it.

      • Rooter will find the forcing estimates in the graph of PDO intervals by noting the changes in CO2 concentration over the intervals, deploying the CO2 forcing function in Myhre et Al. (1998) and adjusting for other anthropogenic forcings by the method described in our paper at scibull.com using values to be found in IPCC assessment reports, then verifying the results against the table of anthropogenic forcings inIPCC (2013).

  5. Out of curiosity, how many sets of temperature data are used to determine the change in climate? It seems like every time a new “record” is set, a different data set is used.

    • Victoria — .4K or .7K of potential global warming would [affect] the temperature by .4K or .7K. The question you meant to ask is — how would it affect the environment and consequently mankind?

      Based upon past historical warm periods the effects on the environment would almost certainly be highly beneficial to mankind.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • Thank you :) How warm would it really get? Would that increase make for more heat waves? Worse heat waves?

    • @ Victoria, I am not being cynical or sarcastic but the answer is probably (from what I have learned on this and other sites) : How many blossoms are going to bear fruit on an apple tree next spring?

  6. Well my little trolls. They have people with degrees over at the IPCC and here is what a top expert said of them –>>> “Top Swiss Avalanche Expert Werner Munter Calls IPCC Report “A Scientific Farce”…”Piss Take”! http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/28/top-swiss-avalanche-expert-werner-munter-calls-ipcc-report-a-scientific-farce-piss-take/

    It’s unbelievable arrogance to believe that we would be able to sustainably influence the climate.”

    Gotta love that one. :-)

    Besides, Lord Monckton is using government funded data sets to make his point.

    • …but that’s the entire point, the climastrologists don’t believe what they say. They don’t believe their studies, their graphs, their models or their papers. They know they are liars. Everything they do is a lie and they get paid for it. This is the true definition of evil: To cause harm to others for benefit. They are evil people. To use euphemisms is far more they they deserve.

      I feel sorry for the sheeple who believe the liars. They have been duped, but cannot admit it.

  7. Open ended loop with zero credit for -ve feedback mechanisms…what do you get, runaway predictions leading to crash and burn. Have to love the Christy work. Then you have the idiotic question: “where did you earn…” Unbelievable arrogance.

  8. I am flattered that “Warren LB” is so impressed with my scientific acumen and flair that he wonders where I got such a first-class degree in physics.

    I got it from the same people who issue birth certificates in Hawaii. It’s genuine, really it is, officer. Cross my heart and hope to die. My graphic artiste did it with her John Bull printing set, layer by layer, in only 24 hours. A bit of a rush job, and it shows, but we couldn’t very well keep the White House counsel waiting when she flew in to collect it or she might have worked out what was going on.

    In the Classical tradition (my degree is in Classical Architecture from Cambridge), we are taught to recognize nonsense a long way off, rather than swallowing the Party Line du jour.

    Oh, and one does not require a degree in physics to plot the graph of a dataset or to determine the least-squares linear regression trend on the data. That’s statistics 101, not physics.

    However, the reviewed paper I have written with three distinguished colleagues in the Science Bulletin does contain a certain amount of math and physics: for in the Classical tradition we are taught that one does not have to have approved Socialist training in a subject to acquire a modest proficiency in it.

    If one is interested, one can learn. I am interested; I have learned; and, on being asked recently for a list of my academic publications on climate for a book to which I have contributed, I found there were 14 of them. Not bad for an amateur, and about 14 more than very nearly all the enviro-activitists who know the Party Line and nothing else.

    • Had you been a physicist, they would have complained that you are not a climatologist.
      Had you been a climatologist, they would have complained that you were funded by Big Fossil.
      Anything, anything at all but address the facts presented.

      I’m neither a mathematician, nor a calculator, but I assert that 2+2=4. Complaining that I’m neither a mathematician nor a calculator, and hence my assertion moot, would be absurd. Yet they persist….

      • Ah, I forgot that part.

        Complain he’s not a physicist, unless he is, then;
        Complain he’s not a climatologist, unless he is, then;
        Complain what he said isn’t in a peer reviewed science journal, unless it is, then;
        Complain about funding by Big Fossil.

        Anything, but anything, to avoid dealing with the facts presented.
        What’s 2+2?

      • The type of temperature graphs and the method used here appeared in Energy & Environment for September 2014 in my paper “Political science: the dangers of apriorism in intergovernmental climatology”. My most recent published paper is in the first January 2015 edition of the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. I have also been published in Science and Education, in the UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin, in the Journal of the Chartered Insurance Institute of London, in the Annual Proceedings of the Seminars on Planetary Emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists, and in Coordinates, the journal of marine navigation, as well as in several academic books on the climate.

        However, only true-believers in the Party Line look at the qualifications and publication record of a contributor to the scientific debate rather than looking at the argument he is presenting. Does Warren LB have any queries or doubts about the information provided in the head posting? If not, then he is off topic.

      • Warren, I do not usually join into such demeaning foodfights. For the reasons why, see my substantive post below.
        But you really do take the troll cake. So, what are your degrees, and with what distinction?
        In the spirit of fair disclosure, mine are AB in mathematical economics summa cum laude, JD cum laude, and MBA Baker Scholar. All of course from an insignificant west Cambridge, Massachusetts University. Aka Harvard.
        So you have just been called, in pokerspeak. Fold or show. If you fold, please go away. Forever. Ad hom by query has no place here, nor anywhere else. If that is the best you can do, then realize you have already lost the ‘climate war’.

      • @warrenlb
        In what peer reviewed science journal did you publish, troll? What was the significance of your publications? The only thing we can see from your posts is that you can read and that you practice the character assassination typical of leftist trolls. Anybody who knows of Lord Monckton knows his background and understands why people like you must attack him at all costs. It’s a waste of your time. I’m not wasting any more of mine reading what you have to say here, particularly since you hide behind a fictitious name. Coward.

    • we disagree about many things.
      However, we agree on this:

      “If one is interested, one can learn.”

    • Monckton of Brenchley,… Oh do be careful of “birth certificates in Hawaii”. If he was not born there and instead in Kenya he may in reality be YOUR problem not ours.For if I remember correctly Kenya at the time was not yet independent, so that makes him English, British anyway. Still want to run with that

      smile
      michael

      • Uh, Mike, what does this have to do with the subject under discussion? To paraphrase Socrates, inferior minds will always ridicule and criticize those people they perceive as being superior and those things they are incapable of understanding.
        I know this is a difficult concept for you to grasp but the messenger is irrelevant. It’s the message that you’re supposed to find fault with, not the person who delivers it.
        You can make fun of me now. That’ll show everyone that you’re not really the vacuous, hostile person you portray in this forum.

    • “Oh, and one does not require a degree in physics to plot the graph of a dataset or to determine the least-squares linear regression trend on the data. That’s statistics 101, not physics.”

      Me thinks that probably climastrologist’s abilities lie more in the arena of ‘how to lie with statistics’:
      http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/stat3.html

    • Anyone with an Excel spreadsheet can download the data series you cite and use the scatterplot and trendline tools that are provided to replicate your results. No need to know whether you have a degree in Natural Science or a degree in Classical Architecture.

      • But that method involves trusting Excel. I wrote my own routine to determine and position the trend-lines using two distinct but equivalent equations, the had the method verified by a professor of epidemiological statistics.

  9. I have arrived at a juncture where I consider AGW obsession to be a moral failing. Please allow me to explain. Through the aeons there has been constant climate change, and, notable climate related catastrophes. More recently, we were blessed by the 20th Century, which was an odd out, most especially its second half. The benign conditions helped to facilitate untold human progress and development, however, it also lulled humanity into a false sense of security. Nothing like it could possibly have lasted. Already, in this early quarter of the 21st Century, with a sleeping Sol, a deeply depressed PDO and onset of depressed AMO, we are experiencing warning waves which alert us to a much less benign future. This is the real climate change issue that requires urgent attention. Meanwhile, we squander untold attention and resource on “killer AGW.” All that energy needs to be redirected to address the real looming climate catastrophes of the next decades and centuries, instead of the false god of AGW.

    • James at 48.

      I absolutely agree. Anyone with a knowledge of the history of the past 10,000 years can see that warmth brings plenty, cold brings famine, population migration, war and plague. We are in an Interglacial, and if the length of previous interglacials is a guide, the Holocene must be coming to an end, if now now, then not too far in the future. I am fascinated by the utter stupidity and gullibility of our politicians and institutions.

      Thank you Lord Monckton for your enormous intelligence and courage.

    • +1 on that at James at 48. The famous experiment in which the temp is raised on the frog in the water till it dies. Except AGW is telling us how warm it is, people are wearing flip flops when it’s snowing. (must be warm snow, not like the snow from the past that was cold.) It’s a psychological ploy. The mouthpieces on here for CAGW didn’t discuss any of the issues in the body of the text. Classic religion of AGW.
      People if told often enough and long enough will believe a lie, even if it is subtle, and has supposedly some authority. The planet has a fever, it was the warmest year on record. Aren’t you feeling warm if not hot? Here, have some free ice cream in July when it’s 50 F when it should be in the 90’s F. ” If you think your hot, you wouldn’t be wrong” What if you’re wrong opposing CAGW? After all ” the scientists ” say CAGW is real. …. That is the science of psychology, not of climate or weather

      I’ll leave it to your imagination to think of why they are doing this.

  10. Lord Monckton: Thanks for the superb picture of Kanchenjunga – one of the Great Mountains (actually, 3d highest) – and one of the toughest to climb, due to “rotting ice” and heat from the nearby Indian plains. Best plan is to view it from Darjeeling, while sipping some great tea. And, of course, CAGW is bullshit.

  11. …the gulf between the exaggerated predictions in the models and the far less exciting observed reality is in danger of becoming an abyss.

    Indeed. As is the ‘leadership’ supporting the exaggerated predictions equally separated from reality!
    From today’s news:

    The Prince of Wails Calls For Climate ‘Magna Carta’ To Save The Planet!
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/27/prince-of-wales-calls-for-climate-magna-carta-to-save-planet-from-global-warming/

    Britannia – You have my deepest sympathies. You see… we (US of A) have a few village idiots in ‘leadership’ also.

  12. Thanks for this important guest post. You have done something I had not seen before, and have had no time to do myself. Figuring the delta T on equisided data across the last PDO shift, giving estimated century rise of maybe 1.3C to 1.5C rounded to remove pseudoprecision (also an essay, but concerning SLR). Cancels out a (the?) major source of natural variability.

    Recall my comment on your previous post here at WUWT concerning your irreducibly simple model paper. Of the five parameters therein, three are really not arguable. The generally accepted values are ‘just’ physics. I rederived r (transience faction) as 0.76 rather than your 0.82. And f (net feedback sum) as 0.3, maybe even 0.25. Independent observational logic for f~0.25 posted elsewhere, most recently in detail at Paul Homewood’s excellent blog a couple of days ago. No need to repeat again here for troll exactitude. Both simple derivations also work backwards from other newest energy budget observational approaches to ECS, of which Lewis and Curry is the most exacting, but not the only one reaching very similar conclusions (e.g Otto, Loehle, backdoor Annan, even steam engineer Guy Callendar in 1938). Your equation then computes an ECS on the order of ~1.5-1.7 depending on f. (Essay Cloudy Clouds points to the biggest unknown.)

    This all fits nicely together. ECS is an equilibrium on time scales longer than the 100 years you calculate here. There is no agreement on how much longer. Hanson argued for a millennium in order to max CAGW. Perhaps 250 years? 500? Even the Ocean pH and Henry’s Law/Le Chatellier Principle appear to equilibrate on time scales of 400-800 years. Any who do not know what those physical chemistry principles are, read my book. The additional change beyond TCR is logarithmic slowing, related to things like net ice sheet albedo and ocean thermal mass. Most climate change occurs within a century. Any unclear commenters should read essay Sensitive Uncertainty.

    So, your new observational information posted above fits perfectly well with results from your irreducibly simple equation, granted the three physics parameters, but using the two ‘free’ parameter estimates that foot to a great deal of post AR5 literature on this key issue. A very nice reconciliation of much theory and observation in a simple, none GCM way. Bravo. All of course within the rather signficant uncertainties in temperature estimates. See essay When Data Isn’t or the 2014 GISS kerfuffle for those, albeit a bit OT.
    Regards. Well done.

  13. “On the combined RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature datasets, the trend is statistically indistinguishable from the surface trend:”

  14. Mr Istvan has indeed spotted that removing the PDO leaves a realistic trend that is half that predicted by the IPCC. And we don’t know whether some of the warming in that trend is natural. It is possible that more than half is natural.

    The time to equilibrium is dependent on the system gain: the higher the gain, the longer the time. But we find system gain to be very low and possibly negative, so that there is no unrealized global warming in the pipeline from our past sins of emission.

    On the IPCC’s system gain (which should have been cut from 3 to 2 in line with its reduction in the feedback sum from 2 to 1.5), half the warming would occur in the first 100 years; the rest over as many as 3000 years.

    So, whichever way one stacks it, it is extremely difficult to make out that there will be a dangerous warming rate.

    • When you say the system gain may be negative, do you mean it is a “loss” rather than a “gain” or do you mean there is a phase reversal. Minor point I know Christopher, just though clarification would help.

      G

      • george e smith is one of the most underappreciated readers here. I read his comments whenever I see one because he’s always thinking about what someone wrote — not a common commodity in today’s internet world, where emotions often rule.

        Rud Istvan is another one I always read. It’s great knowing that really intelligent folks gravitate here, to the Best Science & Technology site on the internet. As Yogi Berra said, you can see a lot just by looking.

      • Well Christopher, I knew that you knew what you meant; but some others might not appreciate that a lower gain is often referred to as negative, when people are thinking of gain in terms of dBs for example, rather than an algebraic gain ratio.

        Quite often in feedback amplifier technology, we are dealing with “forward gains” of a million maybe (120 dB in Voltage terms), and then the “closed loop gain” simply reverts to 1/beta.

        But of course not in a system where the forward gain might be -3dB or 70% if dealing in Voltage terms.

        So I do get a little jittery when thinking of low gain systems in conventional feedback terms.

        I prefer to think of them as systems which have their own species of le Chatalier’s Principle operating (as in Chemical reactions); or Lenz’s law in electro-magnetic Induction.

        As a general principle of real physical systems, any perturbation or deviation from an equilibrium or steady state condition, result sin the system reacting in exactly the manner required to suppress the instigator of the perturbation.

        Here’s an example you might appreciate; Suppose there was this giant slumber party, with a whole bunch of toffs sitting around idling away the time.
        Along comes some perturbationer, and grabs an available open microphone and declares: “Everybody wake up now; it’s time to go home, and today’s descension of the sky has been cancelled for lack of interest !” Well le Chatalier’s principle says someone else who is awake, will hustle the disturber of the piece, off to some quiet location, so that the perturbed, can go back to sleep.

        Not really feedback you see, but just a natural reluctance for the horse to drink, even when led to the water.

        In our atmosphere, it seems that modulation of the cloud cover, is the natural restorer of the proper order.

        G

    • Some years ago, I did a multi-segment linear trend least-squares fit to the Hadcrut global temperature over the full Hadcrut period (~1850+). IOW, I optimised continuous linear segments (ie, the ends of adjacent segments met) to the temperature data without reference to the PDO or any other data. The optimisation was by both date and time (ie, the segment ends were free to move both vertically and horizontally). The result was very similar to the 2nd chart in MofB’s article. IOW, the segments derived from the PDO phases can also be derived without reference to the PDO. To me, this would suggest that the ‘picture’ obtained by MofB is valid, and not just an artefact of the method.

    • TY. I concur with your conclusions, but as you have noted not all the details.
      From a political perspective, only the big general conclusions matter. All the messy uncertain details need to be left politically behind. Science is settled or not. There is an ‘immediate’ CAGW problem, or not. ‘Immediate’, because BRICs like Chindia are not buying ‘immediate’, and that is where the bulk of the future climate mitigation action is. Nobody can undo the past.
      I predict Paris will be worse than Copenhagen, despite OBummers best efforts.

  15. The issue is the theory of global warming appears to be at least 50% wrong.

    So, what makes up that 50% inaccuracy. It is one or more of the following:

    –> the physics of how GHGs warm the atmosphere may be wrong (there is only about 8 billion things per second which could be wrong with this if you know what I mean).

    –> the water vapor feedback may not be 7.0% per 1.0C increase in temperatures (the actual data to date which I track every month says something like 2.5% to 4.5%).

    –> cloud albedo feedback may not be -3.7% per 1.1C in temperatures as predicted in the theory (where did they get this from anyway. There is no weather/climate theory that predicts this. It is made up by Hansen and his early climate model numbers. The data to date is there is no cloud albedo feedback because we have positive and negative empirical results that are small figures).

    –> the lapse rate feedback may not be -0.9 W/m2/1.0C but it appears to actually be a large positive number three times higher because the lower troposphere temperatures are rising far less in temperature than the surface. It is supposed to be the other way around. (I imagine this signals that the surface temperatures have been fiddled with by about 0.3C. If that is true the lapse rate feedback assumption still works).

    The theory says the following temperature increase should then happen when all those feedbacks are operating as predicted. If they vary by just a tiny amount the feedback on feedback amplifier effect falls apart and nothing like 3.0C per doubling occurs. One could get no warming or one could easily get 50C of warming just by adjusting the feedback assumptions.

    The IPCC cannot fix these assumptions to be more realistic because the whole theory falls apart and then there is nothing to worry about. Hence, they have not really changed these numbers in almost 35 years now. Put in what the empirical numbers to date say will happen and the temperature increase per doubling falls to 1.35C per doubling.

    • Thanks for this presentation.

      Put in what the empirical numbers to date say will happen and the temperature increase per doubling falls to 1.35C per doubling.

      TCR is usually expressed as per doubling. How much CO2 is required to do half of the TCR related to doubling? Logarithms fail me there.

  16. Mr Illis’ post is first class. The IPCC itself has realized its feedback sum (at around 2 Watts per square meter per Kelvin) was excessive, and has cut it to 1.5 (still far too high). But it then failed to recalculate its central estimate of climate sensitivity in the light of the downgraded feedback sum: that estimate should have fallen from 3.2 to 2.2 K on that ground alone. And that’s before one starts in on the feedbacks.

  17. Monckton of Brenchley

    A good job, thank you.

    1. The second plot shows the five periods, split by the phase change date of the PDO from Figure 1.
    Four of the five are clear, but I need to ask why 1924 marks the PDO change, and not 1922. The PDO did cross in ’24, but that only after a “rebound” up -and-down between 1922 and 1924. To my reading, I would assign 1922 as the PDO transition year, thus the cycle times become even more even: 33 years steady or cooling temperatures, 24 years warming trend up from the LIA, 30 years warming trend, 14 + ??? years of steady or declining temperatures.

    2. Many observers have seen a 60-66 year cycle in global average temperatures and temperature proxies over time. In your opinion – and it would only be an opinion of course, is the PDO 55-57 year cycle close enough the perceived 66-69 year cycle to either actually be that short-term cycle, or to right now only be working in parallel to that cycle?

    • In answer to Mr Cook’s characteristically thoughtful question, I used JISAO’s dates for the phase transitions, since they own the PDO. Actually there is always uncertainty in the dating, and slight variation in phase lengths, because the object being modelled is chaotic and hence in many parameters quasi-periodic, as here, or even aperiodic.

  18. “The question arises: why were very nearly all runs of very nearly all models so very wrong? And why were the errors, almost without exception, in the direction of monstrous but profitable exaggeration?”

    And why will the scientists involved admit no error?

  19. We’re still talking about a fraction of a degree that is so small…it can fall within a reading or math error

  20. Lord of Brenchley said:

    “There has been no full-blown el Niño Southern Oscillation event since 2010, when McLean, de Freitas & Carter reported that it is the ratio of the frequency of el Niño to that of la Niña events, and not global warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, that has proven to be the prime determinant of global temperature variability in recent decades.”

    No, Bob Tisdale and I (independently of Bob) were the first to say that the ratio and frequency and intensity of El Ninos to La Ninas was a primary factor driving world temperature.

    McLean et al. only said that the ENSO process was a factor in driving world temperatures. Only after Bob and I had argued a number of times that this ratio played a role did these authors adopt this explanation.

  21. When I was working on natural variability in rainfall, I found 60-year cycle in Indian rainfall. Then I tried to compare this with global temperature pattern [WMO fact sheet] and Hurricanes/typhoons. I found the same 60-year cycle fits to them. 1987 started new 60-year cycle with first 30 years are wet years [above the average in majority of the years] and this ends by 2016; and 2017 starts 30 year dry period [majority of the years below the average]. Hurricanes and typhoons followed opposite pattern. These are presented in my book “Climate Change: Myths & Realities”, 2008, http://www.scribd.com/google books.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  22. You might want to look at my 2011 blog post at:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/world-mean-temperature-warmscools.html

    on this issue. McLean et al. did not proclaim the ratio explanation in their 2009 paper. Here is the abstract to prove it:

    [1] Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958−2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship between SOI and GTTA. Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record. Because El Niño−Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.

    It was not until 2013, that McLean’s group publicly adopted the ratio explanation:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/another-paper-blames-enso-for-global-warming-pause-calling-it-a-major-control-knob-governing-earths-temperature/

    Both Bob Ian I had been publicly giving this explanation for the link between ENSO and world mean temperature for almost 2 years by 2013.

    Oh, for those who bleat out that the link is obvious anyway, NO, it actually has be proven scientifically and both Bob and I did just that.

    [“Both Bob Ian I had been publicly” ? Typo? “Both and I” instead? .mod]

  23. There’s a distinct possibility that the PDO is actually the sum of other cycles. What this means is it is not on a set frequency and it may not have consistent amplitude. Then there’s ENSO itself. Like many things related to climate this complicates matters immensely.

    The bottom line is without understanding all these factors there’s no way to determine the effect of the PDO on the climate.

  24. Not to be a contrarian, but some folks claim there was an el Niño in 2014, the PDO is an index of a pattern – not a temperature, and years that are wet versus dry indicates weather, not climate.
    The snowpack in the central Cascades was at 42 percent of normal for this time of year on Tuesday in Upper Kittitas County, and 47 percent in Yakima County.
    http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/snow-levels-lower-than-normal-for-this-time-of-year/article_6ea45a24-a713-11e4-928c-03bd69f7acf0.html

    • No one should claim there was classically defined El Nino. There were El Nino like conditions in the Nino3 area but the duration in ONI criteria in the Nino3.4 area clearly showed it was not a strong event. Still with the setup of high-low North Pacific pressure patterns for the last 2 years, along with weak El Nino-like setup this fall-winter, a global high temp anomaly was put into play.

      The big question, how will the NOAA-NASA Climastrologists handle the weak La Nina-like cooldown coming in the fall-winter 2015-2016?

    • The idea that an El Nino occurred last year does explain why California suddenly got so much rain.Maybe it could be called a stealth El Nino.

  25. The lack of any observation of the predicted equatorial Tropospheric hotspot is as big a problem for ACO2-GW Theory as is the “The Pause.”

    That’s two BIG strikes against ACO2-AGW.

    Any guesses on what the third strike will be?

    i have one. Anyone else?

    • Well, first off – 1 is all you need.
      But, Paul Ehrlich is 100% in, so we are 99.44% sure it is false.

  26. @Rud Istvan. I have no interest in you, or your credentials. But I wonder why you take offense at a question of credentials posed to MofB? Is this a sore point because he is the proponent of views universally rejected by every Scientific Institution on the Planet, no exceptions? Every National Science Academy and Scientific Professional Society, every major University, NASA and NOAA conclude ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net Effects are likely to be strongly negative’. or similar. ALL maintain a published study or position to that effect. And the Peer-reviewed research universally supports those conclusions.

    I have a graduate Science degree from an Ivy League University, but I am not actively engaged in Climate Science or submitting Climate research to peer-review .,nor is anyone on this forum, I’d venture. I maintain that when individuals without such qualifications claim to find severe errors in peer-reviewed climate research, it’s more likely they miss the point because they lack the scientific training to make a reliable critique.

    Or, far worse, when the reviewer cries ‘conspiracy’, ‘incompetence’ or ‘peer-reviewed research cannot be trusted’ or similar, its more likely a sign of reviewer incompetence in that field, rather than some new Galileo-like insight.

    My question is if these reviewers understand the scientific evidence so much better than those in the field, why aren’t they writing up their research and submitting it to peer-review? I think that question answers itself.

    • warren,
      Your last response indicates you have not been reading the material on this issue available for the past 7 or so years. I suggest you start at the following link and spend the next month coming forward on CA, WUWT, JoNova, The Air Vent, Not A Lot of People Know That, NoTricksZone, Real Science, and a few others they link to.
      https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf

      Stay warm – as I write it is -16° F in the Adirondacks.
      That’s why I’m not there.

    • Warren LB should understand that several of those writing here, have contributed reviewed papers to the learned journals. And when we do so we are never asked what our qualifications are. What matters is the quality of our research. The standard technique of the followers of Saul Alinsky is that they have had insufficient instruction in logic, so they resort to fallacies such as the ad-hominem fallacy, a shoddy sub-species of the fundamental logical fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi.

    • warrenlib says:

      @Rud Istvan. I have no interest in you, or your credentials.

      So you cherry-pick commenters’ credentials in addition to cherry-picking the factiods you post? Good to know. We’ll keep your admission in mind.

      Next, warren lb says:

      …views universally rejected by every Scientific Institution on the Planet, no exceptions?

      How many times do we have to point out that is a logical fallacy? It is called the Appeal to Authority fallacy, and in the case of the climate scare it is even more bogus, because those corrupted institutions never poll their dues-paying members! Instead, a simple majority of their board members are cajoled into supporting the ‘carbon’ scare Narrative. This is of course a deliberately designed strategy, which Prof Richard Lindzen explains in detail — and he would surely know, wouldn’t he?

      Until the rank-and-file memberships of each group is allowed to vote on a simple, up-and-down question such as: Is human activity the primary cause of the rise in global temperature? then it is no more than professional propaganda. Both Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman would have plenty to say about that, and it would not support your clique of propagandists.

      Next:

      I am not actively engaged in Climate Science or submitting Climate research to peer-review .,nor is anyone on this forum, I’d venture.

      Wrong, as usual. You deliberately ignore the fact that Lord Monckton is a published, peer-reviewed author in the field of climatology. Since you cherry-pick everything else, that isn’t surprising. “Peer reviewed climate research” seems to indicate whatever you want it to mean for your own partisan political reasons. But you are not smart enough to get that past most readers here.

      Let me ask you the same question you raised above: if published authors like Lord Monckton understand the scientific evidence so much better than you do, why do you refuse to accept it? And why are you not writing for publication, instead of being merely a blog commentator?

      The reason is clear: you are promoting the official Narrative, instead of studying the science. Since you are inactive in the field, by your own argument you should rely on those like Lord Monckton, who are immersed in the subject, and stick to your knitting — whatever that is [I like mine with extra pickles].

      Anthony welcomes articles from everywhere. I think the reason you will not submit an article of your own is because you know it would be ripped to shreds just like your comments, and rightly so. Because the only true “Authority” is Planet Earth — and the planet is solidly debunking everything you and the alarmist cult believes in.

      Harsh, I know. But you brought it on yourself with your constant ad hominem attacks on people who are much more knowledgeable than you.

    • My question is if these reviewers understand the scientific evidence so much better than those in the field, why aren’t they writing up their research and submitting it to peer-review? I think that question answers itself.

      Er, he is published.

      Every National Science Academy and Scientific Professional Society, every major University, NASA and NOAA conclude ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net Effects are likely to be strongly negative’.

      But what does reality say?

      If the observations of the real world are not consistent with the predictions from the physics, which is wrong? All the observations or the models?

      It takes time to turn round a bureaucracy.
      I agree that the science was declared settled 15 years ago. But the real science is never settled.
      Real science seeks the authority of the real world – not institutions.

    • You say

      I have a graduate Science degree from an Ivy League University, but I am not actively engaged in Climate Science or submitting Climate research to peer-review .,nor is anyone on this forum, I’d venture.

      Are you a betting man?

      • Actually I do see a post that was probably made by a peer-reviewed publishing scientist — Phil Clarke, below. Check out his post, re: MofB’s representations.

      • No, Steve – he’s a ‘change the subject’ troll.
        I hope you enjoy MoB’s devastating rebuttal of Clarke’s hand waving at
        Monckton of Brenchley
        January 29, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    • @ warrenlb… questioning credentials is a common tactic of the holy church of AGW. CAGW doesn’t answer legitimate questions. Along with a host of other activities…. CAGW has and still does… claim that if you don’t believe, you are mentally sick, don’t have the credentials to question the IPCC, have a problem with authority, stupid, the village idiot, on the payroll of big oil, flat earthier, don’t believe in evolution, don’t believe in gravity and on and on…… I universally reject the views of every scientific institution on the planet on CAGW. Essentially the evidence proves them wrong. Basically you are deluded.

      • See Phil Clarke’s expose of Monckton’s claims, below.
        And if you wish to reject the conclusions of every scientific institution on Earth, its a free country. I would suggest, however, you consider a credentialed orthopedic surgeon when you need hip surgery.

      • Name me a prediction from the IPCC that was accurate. I’ll go to shanghai to get my knee or hip replacements. Two separate issues aren’t they? Another tactic by CAGW.. NASA Space and NASA weather are not the same. NASA Space has a proven track record of accomplishments. It’s CAGW tactic to not answer questions that are relevant, provide data, or explain anything. It is also a tactic to belittle, ridicule, demean, question not the question but the credentials of the person asking the questions. If anybody in the world that has proven that CAGW is a scam it is the IPCC, the scientific organization and people that support it. Your methods, your predictions and the psychological entanglements all point to fraud. If you have no other interest than what the climate will be, you have an unhealthy fixation on authority.

      • Then see MoB’s devastating rebuttal of Clarke’s hand waving at
        Monckton of Brenchley
        January 29, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    • warrenlb,
      It’s easy to understand why you chose to anonymously publish your remarks here. Who would want to publicly be associated with such an utter lack of logic and comprehension of key issues?

      You still have not addressed a single scientific point, but continue to rely only on logical fallacies in order to present your case, even as others have brought this to your attention.

    • Yes, he listed some of his peer reviewed submissions. But again, yours are? You are not asking about the content, just attacking the messenger. So your lame soliloquy is just that. Lame.

    • Actually, if you had read MofB’s responses, you would have found that he has published 14 articles in peer reviewed journals,. He was also a reviewer for the IPCC itself; Im not sure why you have an issue with his use of the data sets.
      Is there something in his analysis that troubles you?
      Perhaps you can point it out to us?
      Just what is a “graduate science degree” exactly?
      an MS in the history of science?
      a masters in physics?
      Biochemistry?
      Generally, the terminal degree for the sciences is a PhD, no?
      why did you get your masters, was it for secondary teaching certification issues?
      Just asking, because your answer is (intentionally?) vague.
      so…what field of “science” did you get you degree in, exactly, and how actively have you been publishing since getting it?
      we are all interested.

  27. warrenlb

    I replied to your trolling above here. However, you now ask Rud Istvan

    I have no interest in you, or your credentials. But I wonder why you take offense at a question of credentials posed to MofB?

    NO! Rud Istavan, I and all sensible people are grossly offended at your ‘red herring’ of ‘credentials’. It has no relevance to the subject under discussion and attempts to deflect the discussion onto irrelevance. That is offencive to everyone interested in the subject under discussion.

    I remind of the following anecdote for the benefit of any people who fail to understand why the ‘credentials’ of Lord Monckton are not relevant to the information he presents.

    The seminal work on aeronautics was published in a magazine about bee-keeping and was provided by two bicycle salesmen who had no ‘credentials’ in science, engineering and mathematics. The truth, value and importance of their work is demonstrated by the existence of the aerospace industries and NOT by who they were, their lack of ‘credentials, and/or where they published their work.

    Richard

    • Richard – that story always bears repetition. Our troll friend might also like to consider the man who started his professional career as a technical expert, third-class, in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland.

    • Amen to that Richard.

      It is nauseatingly tiresome, that a lot of posters here choose to assault M of B’s work on some basis of his credentials; and it is even more so when they whine about his hereditary title of nobility (a British tradition).

      If you don’t like titles; well we will use the catchall, “hey you”, when referring to you.

      Person’s names themselves are a recognized form of “title”. Some persons even call themselves “senator” as some form of distinction from those of us who are not senators..

      In my more than half a century as a working physicist in industry, some of the very best engineers I have ever encountered, had no university engineering degree. Some were “technicians”. They learned their engineering skills on the bench; often by finding out why the rubbish on the schematic, handed to them by the degreed “Engineer”, didn’t work and couldn’t work. By getting it to work they ended up knowing more about it, than the engineer who designed the original piece of junk.

      A quite remarkable instance of this was one of the principal engineers at Tektronix in Beaverton Oregon,(circa 1960s) who actually had only a high school education, and no university degree. I won’t name him, even though he is no longer with us.

      One of his most creative inventions was a “delay line” used between the vertical amplifier of an oscilloscope, and the deflection plates of the CRT, to delay the signal from getting there, before the “Trigger circuit” and the “Sweep circuit” had got the electron beam scanning across the screen at full speed.
      This delay line was in the form of a double helix, but unlike the DNA molecule, the two wires of this double helix are wound clockwise, and anti-clockwise respectively, on a plastic flexible substrate. The result was an electromagnetic wave propagation velocity that was just a small fraction of (c). Conventional coaxial cable delay lines travel at about 2/3 of the light velocity. So it made for a physically short, but electrically long delay line.

      This patent ended up in contention in a lawsuit between Tektronix and a copycat company who stole their ideas, including using this delay line in their knockoff scopes.

      The lawyer for the other company tried to get this patent invalidated, on the grounds of fraudulent authorship. This simple high school chap couldn’t possible have invented such an exotic concept.

      So he asked in cross examination of the engineer, if he “understood” how this device worked, to which the response was “certainly I do.”

      The lawyer responded; “No I mean do you understand the Algebra ?”

      The engineer paused for a couple of seconds, and then quietly asked the lawyer;

      “What’s Algebra ?”

      This stumped the lawyer completely, who could not describe exactly what algebra is.

      The whole point of the query was that nobody whose sole knowledge of mathematics, beyond arithmetic was algebra, could possibly explain mathematically how this double helix delay line worked.

      For that task , a knowledge of non-linear partial differential equations, as well as Maxwell’s theory of electro-magnetic radiation, was required.

      No the inventor knew nothing about non-linear partial differential equations; but other named co-inventors did, and were experts in it, and had in fact done just such a theoretical description of why this crazy idea worked.

      But the guy who thought it up, sans any mathematics at all, had simply asked himself; “If I was an electron encountering this double helix structure, just what on earth would it make sense for me to do, to get down to the other end of this thing. ?

      The patent was upheld, and it took years before the Government copped to its part in inducing this rat bag of a company to knock off somebody else’s product and produce an almost exact copy of it, violating lots of patents, and finally buying the faux oscilloscope in large numbers for the US Air Force.
      And yes, the Air Force did call on the Tektronix field engineers, to come and teach their technicians how to use this Tektronix scope model, knowing full well, they would actually be using the fake ones. (Well they walked the Tek FEs through the lab full of brand x, on the way to the lecture room, where a single Tektronix scope was for them to demonstrate.)

      Quite often, the only “credentials” one needs, is a demonstrated innate capability to learn anything one wants to put one’s mind to.

      Wish I had Christopher, Lord Monckton of Brenchley’s capacity to dig into all this climate data history, and the available literature, and then present it in his own way for us to peruse.

      Perhaps The Viscount Monckton should ask his detractors here.

      “What’s Climate Physics ??”

      • Great story! As a high school diplomate and inventor of dozens of patented and highly regarded devices, this really resonates, though I do not claim to be in the same league as your engineer colleague! Borrowing the wisdom of Carver Mead of Caltech, credentials are not required to “Listen to the technology; find out what it’s telling you.” Credentialism is a refuge of the ignorant, subcompetent, or disingenuous—like a certain troll I’m thinking of just now, who could raise valid points anytime if he had any.

      • The lab department that I was working in (designing oscilloscope circuitry for a new product) just happened to be the repository for two Tektronix curve tracer instruments for plotting the transfer characteristics of active devices. Well it could deal with more than that, but one model was for testing transistors, and the other for testing valves; well vacuum tubes to most. This was early 1960 and scope design was in transition from all vacuum tubes to all solid state (except the CRT in those days).

        So one morning, in walked the above mentioned non-degreed engineer, and sat down at the tube tester instrument; for which not coincidently, he had done a large part of the circuit design. He was carrying a brand new high gm vacuum tube prototype (dual triode) sent to him from Phillips in Holland. So he plugged it into the curve tracer and set about setting up some variables to look at the characteristic curves of this new tube.

        Something looked a little wonky on the screen; curves that were supposed to be a clean single line curve, had turned into a narrow open loop, so there were two sides for the trace, neither of which was dependable.

        Almost by instinct, he reached into his pocket for a nickel, and while still looking at the screen, he reached around the right side of the instrument, and quickly popped the quarter turn fasteners that held the side panel on, and dropped the side panel. Then he reached in (blindly) with his right hand, and got a hold of one of the vacuum tubes sitting on a crowded chassis inside the instrument, and amidst a bunch of wiring with several supply Voltages up to 500 Volts, and even though it was quite hot, he yanked it out of its socket and placed it on the bench. Then he scanned around on the bench and found a tube of the same type, among a bunch of parts just lying around, and still blindly, he reached around and somehow successfully plugged this tube, into the empty socket, and he had not even turned off the power to the instrument.
        So in the few seconds it took for the new tube to heat up its cathode, he had re-installed the panel, and returned the nickel to his pocket. This whole exercise took about one minute.

        And voila ! the loopy lines had vanished and nice clean single line graphs appeared for the new Phillips experimental tube.

        The discarded tube was actually a pentode tube used in a “Miller Integrator” linear sweep circuit, that drove the horizontal travel of the spot on the CRT.

        He had designed this circuit, and he knew exactly where that tube was in the instrument, and he had replaced it almost as if he was in a trance, or operating on radar. He barely was aware of what he had just done.

        The failing tube had become “gassy” (It glowed blue) and the result was to cause the circuit to misbehave. ( specifically it drew grid current which is a no-no) He recognized immediately just what was wrong, and simply fixed it in a flash.

        Well after he played with the new Phillips tube, he then grabbed the bad one and plugged it into the curve tracer to set it up to find out just how bad it had gotten; before trash canning it.

        Nobody ever left junk part on any of the benches, which is why he knew that the replacement tube he grabbed off the bench was a good tube.

        He was not the head of engineering, but he did have a high engineering manager role as well as a high level circuit design engineering role. Yes we had some highly degreed engineers, who could do all the math in their heads. This guy just knew what he would do if he was an electron poking around in the circuit, and he usually was right.

        That first Instrument project that I worked on became a classic, and it was about 50:50 vacuum tube and transistor circuitry. I did the Trigger circuit (tunnel diodes), Sweep circuit (transistor) Horizontal Amplifier (vacuum tube) and the vertical calibrator circuit. Also did a dual trace vertical amplifier plug in for the instrument. I almost forgot; the type 547 was the very first sweep switching oscilloscope, so you could switch between two different sweeps at quite different speeds to see traces at two different time scales simultaneously (seemingly; they actually were alternated at high switching speed.) And yes I designed the sweep switching circuitry but NO, I did not invent the concept of sweep switching; just implemented it for the first time.

        Tek type 547 in case any of you old geezers ever used one. And we did the project specifically to obsolete the particular scope that was the subject of the patent law suit described above (type 545A).

        The ability to learn and understand almost anything, is by far the most valuable credential anyone can have, and M of B has demonstrated that facility on many occasions.

        G

        [But how many peer-reviewed articles did he have in the approved scientific press? .mod]

  28. So, Warren, given all these wonderfully clever people of yours and all their perfectly peer-reviewed papers with no dissenters whatsoever, what have you to say about the divergence of reality from ALL their predictions ( or any synonym you prefer) that MofB (a mere human) has set out? You have read the article I take it or did you just read the author’s name?

    • See Neil Jordan’s post, below, addressing the point of the models, please. It appears you have your claim reversed from reality.

      And for commentary on another slew of MofB bogus claims, see Phil Clarke’s post, below. Reality is not to be found in your claims it appears,. Twice.

      • @ warrenlb qoute: see Phil Clarke’s post, below. Reality is not to be found in your claims it appears,. Twice,
        Warrenlb you keep saying this time and again, I still haven’t found the “below” part.

    • Then see MoB’s devastating rebuttal of Clarke’s hand waving at
      Monckton of Brenchley
      January 29, 2015 at 3:49 pm

  29. When someone ask me if I believe in global warming ask them “Are you referring to “CO2 dives the climate” theory.

  30. >>The question arises: why were very nearly all runs of very nearly all models so very wrong? And why were the errors, almost without exception, in the direction of monstrous but profitable exaggeration?

    What are the models missing? Obsessed with radiation from greenhouse forcings and questionable temperature feedbacks, they ignore or poorly parameterize many important climate processes and undervalue the net cooling effect of the following events: …<<

    Pretty interesting what you'll find here:
    http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14117.epdf?referrer_access_token=aM2k_6ps-662lWDRF58midRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NQ9JoZh4DL5B4vJaZ-VA15G0I06smVMlMxv7BmIGMvuA9QqIxoNAOmzsBn0lpuTa4LtNuOZmksz1_2XI7TBhxM

    IMHO Marotzke and Forster are not convincing at all, with a strong tendency towards utter nonsense. They say that the models are correct but have been flawed by random fluctuations of the climate having the effect of greenhouse gases being temporarily concealed. Reality just doesn't behave as predicted.

  31. There is an article in Nature just now which explains that the climate models do work after all, despite not showing the pause… Who is gonna comment on it, Monckton or Wiliis? :)

    • Computers just do what they are told to do. Computers do not make mistakes.

      The climate models are not wrong, they are reporting what they are told to report. The climatologists and climate modelers are wrong.

      I know it is implied, but working in the software industry, it is surprising how often I have heard “the computer made a mistake” is uttered, in all cases to avoid accountability.

  32. See how neatly the satellites (UAH and RSS) track with HadCRUt3:

    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1997/to:2005.67/plot/rss/from:2005.67/offset:0.05/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2005.67/offset:0.14/plot/uah/from:2005.67/offset:0.09/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/offset:-0.16

    Note, since the two satellite curves diverge suddenly by ~0.1 degree after the middle of 2005 (there’s like a step change happening here), the UAH lifting (most likely artificially (methodologically)) by 0.05K and the RSS dropping by the same amount, adding them together and dividing by 2 would create a “Satellite Mean Curve”. That’s basically what I’ve done here (without actually doing it, WfT won’t allow me to).

    Temperature plateau post 1997/98 pretty obvious.

    • … adding them together and dividing by 2 would create a “Satellite Mean Curve” that looks completely flat, neither upward, nor downward-trending.

  33. “In truth, we don’t know whether we’re heading up the mountain or down the mountain. So let us from now on call it the “Great Shelf””

    Or Portentous Plateau.

  34. Minor average temperature variations over a few decades are random variations that can not possibly define or determine a long-term trend, even assuming 100% accurate measurements.
    .
    And one would have to assume the “average temperature” of Earth is a useful statistic, made of up many individual measurements combined in a way that does not distort the raw data (average temperature is certainly not a single easy-to-do measurement).
    .
    The cooling trend since the Greenhouse Ages is a long term trend.
    .
    The warming trend since the last ice age peaked 18,000 years ago is a long term trend.
    .
    The average temperature from 1988 to 2014, as shown on many of the charts, doesn’t even qualify as a short-term trend, IMHO, given Earth’s 4.5 billion year history.
    .
    If Earth is not warming, then it is cooling.

    And if Earth was cooling, the environmentalists would put on different hats and become “global coolists” — declaring ‘life on Earth will end as we know it from global cooling’, as a few did in the mid-1970s,
    …. and then scientists could study random temperature variations of the cooling over a few decades, draw pretty trend lines on the charts, as if a few decades of average temperature data define a long-tern trend, extrapolate the trend lines way into the future, declare that life on Earth will end as we know it, and ask for yet another goobermint grant to better define what year, month, day, hour and minute, life will end as we know it.

    • I am still trying to learn, even though I have enough formal education, which allows me to understand most of what I read, I am still somewhat behind the power curve. My education and work experience did teach me to think logically and to be able to discern, when things were not real. I think that you may have mistaken the true intent of the environmentalists or at least their leaders. The big play, IMHO, is control of the world’s energy sources, and through that control or elimination of most of the world’s population. For that you need CO2 CAGW and its production by sources of relatively cheap energy (coal, natural gas, oil, etc.). I don’t know if global cooling would lend itself to that sane end. As always I could be wrong.

      • Danny G. Sage

        You say

        I think that you may have mistaken the true intent of the environmentalists or at least their leaders. The big play, IMHO, is control of the world’s energy sources, and through that control or elimination of most of the world’s population. For that you need CO2 CAGW and its production by sources of relatively cheap energy (coal, natural gas, oil, etc.). I don’t know if global cooling would lend itself to that sane end. As always I could be wrong.

        Global cooling did have that objective.

        Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970 so ‘greens’ claimed emissions of sulphur dioxide from power generation were causing global cooling with probable future catastrophic effects and, therefore, power stations should be shut.
        Then
        Global temperature rose from 1970 to 2000 so ‘greens’ claimed emissions of carbon dioxide from power generation were causing global warming with probable future catastrophic effects and, therefore, power stations should be shut.

        The switch was possible because sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide are both chemicals so ‘must be bad’.

        There has been no discernible global warming or global cooling since 2000 and it remains to be seen whether this plateau in global temperature will end with global warming or global cooling.

        Richard

  35. Here is another piece of fat tossed on the statistical fire. According to an item in today’s California Water News, climate models don’t overpredict:
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article8455157.html
    [begin excerpt]
    Climate models don’t over-predict warming, study shows
    By GEOFFREY MOHAN Los Angeles Times 01/28/2015 10:37 AM 01/28/2015 10:37 AM
    If you listen to climate change skeptics, Earth’s surface hasn’t warmed appreciably in the last 15 years, and any “record” set last year is just the result of the planet doing what the planet naturally does.

    It turns out they’re right, but for the wrong reasons, according to a study published online Wednesday in the journal Nature.

    There is no inherent bias in climate models that makes them over-estimate the effects of human activity, according to the study.

    “Cherry picking” the most recent 15-year interval to refute climate change modeling is misleading and obscures the long-term agreement between the models and measurements, according to study co-author Piers Forster, an atmospheric physicist from the University of Leeds, England.

    A study that combined 114 possible 15-year trends since 1900 found that there was nothing statistically biased in the ways model-generated data differed from actual measurements of global mean surface temperatures. These short trends cannot predict “chaotic” fluctuations in such factors as ocean currents, according to the study.
    […]
    For every start year after 1915, the modeled 62-year trends show too little warming, the study found. From about 1945 onward, they slightly over-estimate the measured warming, but by a difference that is well within the margin of natural climate variability, the study found.
    [end excerpt]
    It would appear that models showed that what other models showed was not incorrect.

    • That is what Marotze, the lead author, of “Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends” said in an interview

      >>We actually cannot exclude systematic errors of the models. If all models make the same error, it does not stand out. Then we see in the worst case only that the models differ from reality. So far, however, the deviations are not serious. So we should expect a significant global warming.<<
      Marotzke, same interview:
      >>The deviation of the models from reality can be explained as coincidence.<<
      (My translation, source: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimaprognosen-klimamodelle-bestehen-test-zur-pause-der-erwaermung-a-1015415.html)

      In other words, the authors have no idea whether the models are correct. Schmocks.

  36. More Monckton Misrepresentations.

    … 1.4 Cº/century, or below half the central rate predicted by the IPCC on its “business-as-usual” scenario in 1990

    Ah, but BAU or Scenario ‘A’ , meaning no emmission controls, was only one of 4 scenarios A-D in AR1, one which we now know was overly pessimistic due to controls being introduced on CFCs and the collapse of the Soviet Union, inter alia. Under the scenarios B-c, which did project increasing controls, IPCC correctly projected warming of 0.1-0.2C/decade. SSSH, brush that under the carpet.

    ‘McLean, de Freitas & Carter reported that …’

    also see Foster, Annan, et al, 2010, which reported that McLean et al’s conclusions were

    ‘not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations

    led the IPCC to abandon the computer models on which it had previously relied without question.

    These would be the models plotted in the figure …

    In the final or published draft (lower panel),

    That figure has been amended, overlaid with the Viscount’s nonsensical arrows and shading. The original is Fig 11.25 in AR5.

    This new and much-reduced best estimate, equivalent to 0.13 K decade–1, is a little below the 0.14 K decade–1 that was observed over the preceding 30 years, despite continuing increases in CO2 concentration. The IPCC is now actually predicting a standstill, or even a little slowdown, in the rate of global warming.

    Nope. The IPCC give a range of warming rates, from 0.12°C to 0.42°C per decade. Nowhere do they state a ‘best estimate’ nor do they identify any scenario as more likely than the others.

    a full decade has passed since January 2005, the benchmark month for the predictions of near-term global warming to 2050 in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, it is time to take stock with a comparison between the rate of temperature change the IPCC predicted by the IPCC in 2005 ….

    Huh? Which report is being referenced here? AR5 was published in 2013, the AR4 in 2007. If interested, one can reference the AR3 projections here. Under Scenario A2, arguably the one that most closely matched the actual forcing outcomes they projected 0.35C, or 0.175C/ decade. Over the period, the linear trend in HADCRUT4 was 0.175C/decade. Notice also, that of the 15 years before in 2005 HADCRUT rose at a rate approximately 50% higher than the IPCC’s short term prediction.

    The IPCC’s prediction is that there should have been a sixth of a degree of warming over the past decade. However, there has barely been any at all.

    As, usual, His Lordship is coy about giving a reference. The IPCC do not give firm predictions for periods as short as ten years.

    the failure of global temperatures to keep pace even with the IPCC’s latest and much-reduced global-warming projections is remarkable.

    The failure of this sentence to reflect reality is remarkable.

    failure is evident in all 73 of the models examined by Christy (2013), not only confirming the models’ propensity to exaggerate warming

    Confrming little more than Christy’s ability to cherry-pick one area of the atmosphere where measurements are highly uncertain and compare it to an equally carefully selected set of model projections under an extreme scenario (RCP8.5, described by His Lordship himself as ‘unrealistic’ (LOL)).

    via the use of a system-gain equation borrowed from electronic circuitry – an equation that has no place in the climate

    An equation that does not used by any of the models. Go on, show us in the code of one of the open-source models where it is used….

    That will do, for starters.

    • Mr Clarke, in his customary uncivilized tone, says I have made “misrepresentations”. No.
      First, he complains that I have compared temperature change in the business-as-usual world in which CO2 concentration continues to rise with the exaggerated business-as-usual predictions of the IPCC. CO2 concentrations have indeed continued to rise at a gently exponential rate. Global warming, though, has occurred at half the best-estimate rate predicted by the IPCC on its business-as-usual scenario.
      Mr Clark excuses the IPCC by saying it could not predict that controls on CFCs would be introduced or that the Soviet Union would collapse. However, CFCs – had they not been controlled – would have made virtually no difference to global temperature over the 25-year period. And the Soviet Union, with a relatively small population, was not one of the world’s great emitters. Its temporary collapse also made little difference. So business as usual is precisely what occurred, but business-as-usual warming is precisely what did not occur.

      Secondly, Mr Clarke says the IPCC’s scenario B was correct. However, scenario B was predicated on the introduction of significant controls on CO2 emissions. Those controls did not occur, which is why CO2 concentration continues to increase at ever more rapid rates, with no corresponding increase in global temperature. The IPCC’s prediction, therefore, failed.

      Thirdly, Mr Clarke cites a paper disagreeing with Maclean et al., who said the frequency of el Ninos and La Ninas would have a significant effect on global temperature trends.

      So let us look at the temperature record. Strong and frequent el Ninos occurred in the period 1976-1998 and there was relatively rapid warming too. Since 1998 the el Ninos have been smaller and less frequent, the la Ninas larger and more frequent, and there has been no statistically-significant warming. And, on any view, my reporting the conclusions of the McLean paper was not “misrepresentation”.

      Fourthly, Mr Clarke complains at my showing the change in the IPCC’s medium-term temperature predictions between the pre-final and final versions of the Fifth Assessment Report, for which I was an expert reviewer. I took the IPCC’s own stated intervals of predictions and plotted them on the two graphs. The IPCC has indeed acted on my advice among that of others and greatly reduced its near-term projections. It should have done the same for the longer-term projections. Once again, I made no “misrepresentation”; and Mr Clarke, who had plainly not checked the IPCC’s texts to see where I had obtained the figures from, made this allegation without having first exercised the minimum due diligence to see whether it was true. That is the conduct of a careless, scientifically ignorant troll.

      Fifthly, Mr Clarke complains that the IPCC’s much-reduced mid-range estimate, equivalent to 0.13 K/decade, is a little below the 0.14 K/decade that had been observed in the preceding 30 years. He does not say where he gets his generally higher interval of supposed IPCC predictions from, so I cannot comment on them.

      Sixthly, Mr Clarke correctly takes me to task for having said that January 2005 was the benchmark date for the Fifth Assessment Report’s temperature predictions. This should have read Fourth Assessment Report. This, however, was not a “misrepresentation”: it was, self-evidently, a misprint.

      Seventhly, Mr Clarke says the IPCC do not give firm predictions for periods as short as ten years, so I should not have put any weight on their ten-year prediction. However, they did provide a clear indication of the medium-term warming rate, which is what was displayed in the relevant graph in the head posting, and it should be very clear even to Mr Clarke that the actual trend in global temperature since 2005 is so very considerably below the predicted trend that the IPCC’s prediction cannot thus far be regarded as successful. Once again, there is no “misrepresentation” here. Mr Clarke should mind his language.

      Eighthly, the discrepancy between the IPCC’s much-reduced global warming projections and the continuing failure of the world to warm as ordered is remarkable, but Mr Clarke does not think so. He is entitled to his opinion, I suppose, but he is not entitled to describe my opinion as a “misrepresentation”.

      Ninthly, Mr Clarke complains that John Christy’s exposure of the failure of all 73 climate models studied by him to predict the warming rate in the mid-troposphere is “cherry-picking” of just one region of the atmosphere. However, that discrepancy is serious, for the models predict – wrongly, as it turns out, that there will be twice or thrice the warming in the tropical mid-troposphere that there is at the surface. However, this differential warming is not observed, except in one highly questionable and defective dataset. Besides, it was not appropriate for Mr Clarke to describe as a “misrepresention” by me an accurate research finding by Dr Christy.

      Tenthly, Mr Clarke says the Bode system-gain relation “is not used in any of the models”. The trouble with trolls is that they do not know the literature. So let us begin with Manabe & Wetherald (1967); then look at Hansen (1984), who, in his Table 1, specifically refers to the relation in the caption and demonstrates by worked examples that the equation is indeed in use in his model; then to Hansen (1988), who specifically refers in the paper to “the feedback [system-gain] factor f = 3.4 for our GCM” [general-circulation model]. Then look at IPCC (2007, p. 631 fn, where – in an admittedly more than usually Sibylline footnote – the equation is explicitly stated. Then look also at Roe & Baker (2007); Bates (2007); Roe (2009) … well, you get the point. Mr Clarke assumes that the reviewers at the Science Bulletin would have allowed us to assert that the equation is used in the models without providing evidence. Well, we did provide evidence, right from the start, as Mr Clarke could have checked. Instead, he falsely – and for the tenth time in a single malevolent and incompetent posting – accuses me of “misrepresentations”. A more adult approach on his part would be welcome in future.

  37. Further, Monckton maintains that this feedback-gain equation was used in earlier GCM’s. Not true. That would be “cheating at patience”. Pointless, as the purpose of GCM’s is to determine any feedback effects generated from initial and forecast scenario events. What researchers did was to use the equation to quantify outcomes. It was never inserted into GCM’s before running the integration. The equation is only ever used in energy balance type calculations, which use observations (and estimates of forcings) to determine the level of feedback and, typically, to estimate the TCR and ECS. It is not used in more complex GCMs. In GCMs the feedbacks are an emergent property of the model, not something imposed on the model through imposing strong-net-positive feedbacks.
    It is non scientific to constrain nature. This is effectively what was done.

    • See my reply to Mr Clarke, in which direct evidence for the inclusion of the Bode relation in GCMs is provided. And “Toneb” seems unaware of the fundamental physics used in the determination of climate sensitivity. Yes, the models are run in the hope (probably the vain hope) of attempting to determine the magnitudes of all climate-relevant forcings and feedbacks. But climate sensitivity cannot be determined directly from those values without having some method of determining the system gain. In the absence of a system gain representation of some kind, the models cannot determine climate sensitivity at all, except in the zero-feedback case, where there is no system gain.

      The Bode relation, and any GCM representation that yields climate sensitivities as high for a given set of forcing and feedback values as the Bode relation, will prodigiously overstate climate sensitivity. It is the wrong equation. Take it away – for it does not belong in the climate – and the climate “crisis” disappears.

  38. @richardcourtney. And others who deny my claim that a reliable critique of Scientific research requires a scientific education. I suppose you would also ignore the credentials of your heart surgeon. And perhaps allow your self educated barber to replace a hip joint.
    Eg, See Phil Clarke’s dissection of MofB’s attempts to prove he’s good at Climate Science as a reminder of how journalists might do at the research game. Like the barber doing a hip replacement…but without the consequences.

    • Warren LB, who takes a merely aprioristic stance in this thread, seems to think that his fellow troll Mr Clarke has “dissected” the head posting. Let him look at my reply to Mr Clarke’s ten accusations of “misrepresentation” on my part, and think again. It is the characteristic of the totalitarian everywhere to assume that unless a person has a qualification in a given subject he must defer to the authority of those who do. However, that is not how science is done. Many of its greatest discoveries were made by amateurs who had managed to learn a great deal about their subject without having endured some approved training course.

      What really alarms the trolls, of course, is the thought that even a layman can see through the nonsensically exaggerated claims from which they or those with whom they associate or identify themselves profit so handsomely and so undeservedly. Events will determine who was right. Alas, I shall not see that day: my life expectancy is only another seven years. But at least future generations will be able to look at what I wrote and said, and look at the host of useful idiots who sneered from the sidelines because they knew no science at all, were disinclined to learn any and were, therefore, more comfortable simply believing what they thought or were told (incorrectly) was a “97% consensus”, when no such consensus existrf and when, even if it did exist, was simply wrong.

      Those generations will note that it was the totalitarian Left that was the principal promoter of the climate scam, inferentially because the Communists have long wanted to find some pretext – any pretext – to establish a global government under their control. They have said so time and again and continue to say so. And they will note that the totalitarian Left was wrong in every material particular of the science and economics. And they will marvel that the totalitarian Left could take so many people in for so long. But in the end, like it or not, the truth will emerge. Either the world will warm at the predicted rate or it will not. On present evidence, it will not. So much for “settled” science, which is really a Lysenkoist replacement of independent, rational and logical scientific thought with a feeble-minded and incuriously passive acceptance of the Party Line.

      • That hasn’t stopped Communists from lying, especially when they have everybody under their control. Disagree and you will have to be reeducated. Or the party faithful keep repeating the party line for the greater good of the party. Whatever the goal is. (Mostly to kill large number of people and cause widespread misery) Wonderful group of people.

      • Thank you. We need more people of your quality in this world. IMHO some of the smartest people I know or know of, don’t have PHD’s behind their names. “Your welcome at my fire anytime.”

      • I am still new at this. My thanks was for Lord Monckton and all the time and effort he has spent on posts, lectures, and videos for my education. He is one of the smartest people I know of. Thank you again.

      • Danny G. Sage

        You say you are interested in lectures and videos. I commend you to search for items by Bob Carter who is as lucid and informative as Viscount Monckton.

        Richard

    • We have a political decision that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activities and that this increase in CO2 is responsible for Global Warming. Global Warming will cause Climate Change and such will be followed with very bad consequences. So we need to act now so temperature will not increase by reducing or even eliminating the use of fossil fuels. This is the issue. CO2 is the issue. Not the models!!

      So start from the above. Some believe and some don’t. Both present their case.

      CMofB says no such thing as increasing CO2 is causing Global warming. Phil Clark says it does.
      Both present their charts. Since you do not believe CMofB to be correct, forget about him and his charts etc.
      Look at what Phil Clark presented. Did you look at the Fig 11.25 on his post? Did you go see it?
      Not as dramatic as the charts from CMofB, but after looking at Fig 11.25 did you think the models are working great? Yes?
      You can see very well that the “actual data” are at the very bottom of the “models predicted data”. Right? And you can also see that two more years of actual data need to be added to this chart. No help here with the last two years. Right?

      I do not know who is going to win. But if the actual data continues at about the same level, the line will cross the bottom “model likely range” in Fig 11.25 pretty soon. If so, CMofB will win, regardless of maybe the “better scientific credentials” of Phil Clark.

      Just for the fun of it, someone will win. Please don’t deflate the globe to win.

    • @Warrenlb

      So who are these credentialed people you refer to? Michael Mann, James E. Hansen, Peter Gleick, Katharine Hayhoe, Phil Jones, Gavin A. Schmidt? – or which others?
      I am a layman, but I can see logic and BS when it exists from a fore mentioned people, and Christopher Monckton is promoting logic. Since you cannot see it (logic) it is your own shortcoming/deficiency.

      • @J. Philip, Logic does not exist in the party line. It is completely against the “Mantra” which is: ” Do as I say, don’t do as I do.” see Al Gore etc.. And if you do as I say, then you are a nice pliant uninformed idiot. (but we won’t tell you that to your face! haha but we’ll give you a pat on the back, you’re a good boy now go sit down be a good little troll).

    • Warrenlb

      You really should think before posting offensive nonsense such as this

      @richardcourtney. And others who deny my claim that a reliable critique of Scientific research requires a scientific education. I suppose you would also ignore the credentials of your heart surgeon. And perhaps allow your self educated barber to replace a hip joint.

      I am very satisfied with the team dealing with my heart failure: contrary to initial prognosis I made it past Christmas, and I now anticipate attending my son’s wedding in April.

      The partial stabilisation of my heart means – I am told – that my liver will heal itself and that the rate of progression of my emphysema (which is destroying my lungs) will reduce.

      I don’t know the ‘credentials’ of my heart surgeon who is among those keeping me alive, and don’t intend to ask their ‘credentials’ because they will continue to provide sufficient expertise to keep me alive or not. Their expertise is important to me, not their ‘credentials’.

      I would accept your apology for your offensive twaddle.

      A “reliable critique of Scientific research” requires an understanding of the scientific method. It does NOT require “a scientific education” that has provided scientific ‘credentials’. Similarly, a reliable critique of a golfer’s performance does not require the commenter having ever played golf.

      Richard

  39. False equivalency. Must I be a writer in order to discuss and critique a Shakespearean play? Do I need a criminal justice degree to criticize police for shooting leashed dogs? Maybe I should be a trained counselor to help an abused child?

    • If you what to be taken seriously, then the answer is obvious. The science is taken seriously, by those that matter.
      Critise all you want, but coming from ignorance the real world holds *your* opinion for what it is. An opinion. But then some people have an imaginary friend, they call God. No scientific proof.

      • If you what to be taken seriously….. Seriously?
        Critise all you want…… No need to criticize that.
        Ad hom attack on religious folks…..
        No ‘science’ stated or referenced…..

        ‘Nuff said.

      • Very enlightening insight into your mind there Tonyb.
        You do realise that it’s really YOU who yearns to be taken seriously by “those who matter”.
        Anyone disagreeing with you must therefore be “ignorant”, and “those that matter” must be shielded from them. Otherwise the edifice may collapse mightn’t it.

      • “If you what to be taken seriously….. Seriously?
        Critise all you want…… No need to criticize that.
        Ad hom attack on religious folks…..
        No ‘science’ stated or referenced…..

        ‘Nuff said.”

        Do you deny that “there is no scientific proof for God” (who’s ever God you may choose)?

        Nuff said.

      • Your imaginary friend is ‘nogod’. Your belief in nogod has no scientific basis or proof, yet your adherence to your religion is emphatic and leads to your ad hom attacks on others. I’m not responding with ad hom attack, for I have no wish to disabuse you of your personal beliefs or cause injury. I am only clarifying your unprovable belief in nogod.

        ‘Nuff said.

    • Tony’s seems to think scientists should be trusted because they are qualified. As is pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the seminal paper on aeronautics was written by two bicycle mechanics in a journal of bee-keeping. Why were they so successful? Precisely because they experimented for themselves, meticulously recorded their results and learned from them. They even redesigned the infernal combustion engine to improve its power-to-mass ratio. They did what I or anyone would do, They checked for themselves.

  40. I have reached the conclusion that what have experienced over the last 60 years or so is nothing more than cyclical seasonal variation and has nothing to do with “climate change” of the order alarmists are so concerned about. Now, if Antarctica turns into a tropical paradise again, then I would consider there might be something to be concerned about.

    • Why do you want this?
      MofB has presented his data.
      Phil Clarke has presented his data.
      So what else do you want? Can’t you read and make up your mind?

      • warrenlb,

        My advice: stop posting for a while. Really. Take a timeout. Every comment makes you look worse.

        Face the fact that you don’t know nearly as much about this subject as Lord M, and you never will. Referring to Phil Clarke all the time doesn’t get you off the hook either, you’re just setting up another strawman: “Look at what he said!” The question is: what do you say? But whatever you say always amounts to a personal attack.

        We want facts and logic here, not ad-homs and propaganda — your stock in trade. You’re getting badly beat up here because you don’t know enough. You probably won’t take my advice, but if you did, you would be cutting your losses.

    • Warren lb has been caught out again. It says I have not replied to Mr Clake’s I’ll-founded allegations of ‘misrepresentation’. It did not even Chekkie whether I had replied. Hint: I had. Crushingly.

      Do not assume that because I have no piece of [paper] to say I am a scientist And do not passively regurgitate the Party Line that I know no science. To argue against the man rather than his argument is to perpetrate and to perpetuate an elementary and fundamental logical fallacy excoriated by Aristotle 2350 years ago: the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi.

      • Yes. Our Dear Leader is another intellectual ‘giant’ that conceals his academic record, lest his real failings and deceits be held to public inspection. Our nation can survive a divisive and destructive ‘leader’ like Barack Hussein Obama. It may not survive the divisive and destructive plurality that elected him, however.

        As for the current troll, he mindlessly repeats his AGW mantra, regardless of the contra-evidence presented. That is apparent to all here. He won’t engage or learn…. so ignore him!

  41. In climate science, a forcing is defined as something which, if applied for a finite period of time will result in a change in the energy content of the planet. Energy change divided by the effective thermal capacitance equals (with consistent units) the change in average global temperature (AGT). Although any consistent set of units could be used, forcing (per unit area) could be in Joules/sec and energy change in Joules.

    If forcing is constant, the energy change is simply the forcing times the duration of the forcing. If the forcing varies with time then the energy change is the time-integral of the forcing. If some average forcing results in an average temperature, the temperature will fluctuate in response to the time-integral of the forcing ‘anomaly’ (the difference between the forcing of each year and the average forcing for many years).

    Pick any two points separated in time that have the same average global temperature (AGT) anomaly. The cumulative forcing is the time-integral of the forcing (or the time integral of the forcing anomaly) times a scale factor. Because the AGT at the beginning and end of the time period are the same and the time-integral of CO2 level is not zero, the scale factor must be zero. As a consequence, the effect of the forcing is zero.

    The two points could be during the Holocene thousands of years apart which would avoid significant influence from ocean oscillations. If the forcing in question is atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the effect of CO2 below about 285 ppmv is demonstrated to be zero. If the time period spans several interglacials, this is increased to about 300 ppmv. If the time period spans the Phanerozoic this is increased to several times the present 400 ppmv.

    Climate sensitivity, (the increase in AGT due to doubling of CO2) is therefore not significantly different from zero.

    The two natural factors that do explain average global temperature since before 1900 (including the flat since before 2001) with 95% correlation are disclosed at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com.

    • Which would contradict the data from the Vostok Ice Cores, or from multiple prehistoric epochs. When confronted by such contradictory evidence, one is reqhas to revist his anlsyis.

      • The accident-pipeline Warren lb should do the math, using our model at scibull.com. The total paler climate global temperature interval from the Vistok ice cores (Jouzel et al, 2007, Petit et al., 1999) is just 6.5 K. The pre-industrial CO2 interval over the same 810,000-year period is from 180-280 ppmv, a forcing of 2.4 W/m2. Multiply by the Planck parameter 0.31 to determine warming in the absence of feedbacks. Answer: 0.7 K. Multiply by three to allow for IOCC’s wildly exaggerated estimate of temperature feedbacks and you don’t get much more than 2 K. Also note from Monnin et Al., 2002, or indemuhle et Al., 2003, that it was actually temperature that changed first. CO2, therefore, was a relatively insignificant feedback to whatever caused the glacial-interglacial transitions.

        While I should not go so far as to say CO2 has no effect on global temperature, the considerations in our paper at scibull.com suggest it is likely to be small, harmless and beneficial.

      • warrenlb

        In reply to Dan Pangburn having explained

        Climate sensitivity, (the increase in AGT due to doubling of CO2) is therefore not significantly different from zero.

        you replied saying in full

        Which would contradict the data from the Vostok Ice Cores, or from multiple prehistoric epochs. When confronted by such contradictory evidence, one is reqhas to revist his anlsyis.

        Rubbish!
        The explanation of Dan Pangburn is SUPPORTED by “the data from the Vostok Ice Cores” and is NOT contradicted by any evidence from any “prehistoric epochs”.

        The Vostock Ice cores indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentration followed change to temperature typically with a lag of ~800 years. A cause cannot follow its effect and, therefore, the ice core data indicates that temperature governs atmospheric CO2 which, of course, can only be true if the “Climate sensitivity, (the increase in AGT due to doubling of CO2) is therefore not significantly different from zero.”

        Atmospheric CO2 concentration was several times higher than now during some “prehistoric epochs” which were ice ages.

        It seems that you are another like Brandon Gates who knows and understands nothing about climate science so makes assertions by cutting&pasting from elsewhere.

        Richard

    • “””””…..
      Dan Pangburn

      January 29, 2015 at 6:08 pm

      In climate science, a forcing is defined as something which, if applied for a finite period of time will result in a change in the energy content of the planet. ……””””””

      Dan,

      Are you seriously offering as a formal scientific definition (of a “forcing”) that it is “something” ??

      Just what are the units of “something” ?

      Aren’t all periods of time finite ? Certainly 10^10 years is still a small enough number that one would never consider the age of the universe to be infinite.

      And we do know that significant observable physical phenomena do happen in times as short as a few attoseconds, and serious cosmologists believe significant cosmological events have happened in the past in a little as 10^-34 seconds ( or is that 10^-43 seconds).

      If “climate science” is to be taken seriously as a truly scientific discipline, it needs to start describing its elements in the conventional units that are used universally in all other fields of the physical sciences.

      An ordinary “Band-aid” , dependingon where you “apply it” will in fact change the energy content of the planet.

      Not that you or I might be able to measure that effect, but it will have one, thus fitting your formal definition of a forcing. (I “Climate Science” that is )

    • Well I might have been under the influence at the time. Some words in the “climate” lexicon do tend to destabilize my thoughts. “Forcing” is one of the sure fire ones, along with “anomaly”, “climate sensitivity”, and “logarithmic”.

      If forcing is indeed joule per second (sometimes known as watt) or per square meter, then why not use that in the definition rather than “something”.

      And I still can’t get to the bottom of who exactly invented the term “climate sensitivity”, or exactly what it is.

      At one time I read that it was the late Stephen Schneider who invented CS, and that it was the increase in the average global surface Temperature, for a doubling of CO2. (why do people say ppmv, instead of molecular abundance.) How does one decide what is a unit of volume in the atmosphere; but any sample of any size can be specified as to actual percentage of each species of molecule in that sample. Seems like specifying molecule species is a digital thing.

      “logarithmic” is an aortic rupture. A doubling is a doubling whether 280 ppm to 560 ppm or one molecule of CO2 per litre to two molecules of CO2 per litre.

      But anyhow my apology; and I have now read your complete post.

      My basic position is that I run out of alphabet letters to put on problem folders, before I ever get to even thinking about climate as a problem to be concerned about, or man’s role in it (if any). There are so many more important issues facing the human species than climate, so to me it is bordering on criminal to spend any money on it.

      But when you don’t have to produce any tangible demonstrated results for the duration of ones entire working career, then I can see it as a natural magnet for those with no real goals in life. Well it ranks right along with “ethnic studies” as a life’s work.

      g

      • GEORGE E. – Apparently we are close if not exactly on the ‘same page’. I was annoyed by much of the terminology early on but eventually got comfortable and have adopted the terms as traditional and having fairly well defined meaning among most people interested in this stuff. Communication is difficult at best, as we might have just experienced.

        I used the word ‘something’ in an attempt to start with a general concept before proceeding to explicit.

        Climate sensitivity is merely a short hand way of stating how much the average global temperature will increase from a doubling (from pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv) of the CO2 level. I have researched this using several different approaches and it always comes out to zero or near zero. I expect the coming decline in measured temperatures to convert a lot of the deniers of natural climate change.

        I am OK with ppmv. It removes the possible ambiguity that it might have been determined by weight.

        The deal about ‘logarithmic’ is that additional increments have decreasing effect. I like the analogy with identical blankets. The second one makes a big difference while the 10th one doesn’t do much.

        I have a general philosophy about education at all levels. IMO (assuming you have to/want to work, all of your education should be oriented towards acquiring marketable skills.

  42. warrenlb says:

    Which would contradict the data…

    Nonsense. The data entirely supports the climate skeptics’ view. Planet Earth is busy debunking the alarmist narrative, so all they can do is make bogus assertions like that.

    And:

    We’ve seen no substantive scientific response By MofB to Phil Clarke…

    That jamoke is blind if he believes that nonsense. Lord M has deconstructed every point raised. And I note that ‘warren’ keeps trying to have Mr Clarke do his arguing for him, which indicates that ‘warren’ has got nothin’. He probably does not even understand the issues.

    As ‘rd50’ notes above, the issue is not the models. The models are all wrong; no exceptions. Rather, the issue is the putative effect of CO2 [“carbon”]. Since CO2 has not caused the endlessly predicted runaway global warming, skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientists] who at first accepted the conjecture are now in the position of having to re-think their failed conjecture. But the demonizers of [harmless, beneficial] CO2 refuse to admit that. Instead, they have doubled down with their scare stories.

    The bottom line is this: CO2 has simply not done what was incessantly predicted by the warmist cult [at least, until global warming stopped.]. Despite steadily rising CO2, global T has been in stasis for many years. In fact, there isn’t one alarming prediction ever made that has come true. Not one! In a science discussion, that is devastating to their conjecture. At this point the CO2=cAGW conjecture has been thoroughly falsified. It is flat wrong.

    Next, man-made global warming [MMGW] is often labeled a ‘theory’, but to be a theory [or a hypothesis] it must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. Therefore, MMGW is no theory or hypothesis. It is merely a failed conjecture [an opinion]. Honest scientists will re-set, and try to fix their failed conjecture, even to the point of stating that CO2 does not have any measurable effect on global T. But only a few honest scientists have said that. The $Billions wasted every year on the ‘carbon’ scare have had the desired effect: scientists have mouths to feed and mortgages to pay. Better to keep silent, than jeopardize their livelihoods.

    Conclusion: people like wlb, socrates, clarke, and the rest of their ilk are flogging a dead horse. Planet Earth has falsified their claims. When you come right down to the basic question, the planet is the ultimate Authority. They are arguing against reality. Most readers here can see that, plain as day.

    So, I have a question for those folks: Who do you think you’re kidding?

    Because you’re not fooling us. We know better.

    • I agree, something is happening and not well reflected by the models using CO2 as the driver.

      1. Downloaded the NOAA atmospheric CO2 data published on line: annual mean concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory available from 1959 to 2014. I assumed well mixed as this is already at hand from preliminary data from OCO-2 satellite published recently by NASA and therefore represents “global average”

      2. Downloaded GISS global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (anomalies) from 1959 to 2014 published on line by Goodard Institute for Space Studies.

      3. Plot CO2 yearly data (X axis) vs. annual temperature anomalies (Y axis) for different years spans.

      Here are the results:

      1. CO2 vs. anomalies, all years 1959 to 2014 gives a very nice linear regression. R squared value = 0.87. Can’t beat this.

      2. Looked at the plot and the temperature anomalies data. Something is happening around 1990 and again around 1998. The anomalies data listed from 1959 to 1990 are from +3 to +38 with 10 years having minus values, -1 to -19.
      From 1990 to 1998 the values are all positive, from +39 to +61. Then the values from 1998 to 2014 are again all positive but now even higher than the values between 1990 and 1998.

      3. CO2 vs anomalies, 1990 to 2014. Linear regression is now R squared = 0.63. Not so good but still OK.

      4. CO2 vs anomalies, 1998 to 2014. Linear regression is now R squared = 0.26. Forget that there is any correlation between CO2 and annual temperature anomalies for this period.

      So the conclusions are:

      The models are not wrong. The modelers can still continue to claim that the period 1998 to 2014 is too short to change their models. However, something will have to happen again. Otherwise the difference will be increasing between reality and the models.

      Note: The anomalies numbers listed above are as listed in the GISS table. They need to be divided by 100 to obtain the actual number in degree C.

      • The models are wrong. In 1990 they predicted on business as usual that there would be 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K global warming by 2025. The warming rate to date is below half the central straight-line estimate, and is well below the entire interval of predictions. The IPCC’s predictions from the 2007 report have also proven to be exaggerated, which is why the IPCC itself has greatly reduced its medium-term predictions. If even the relentlessly exaggerating IPCC is beginning to become embarrassed by its exaggerations, it really won’t do to suggest that the models are right.

      • Try other years for shorter time spans. Of course the correlation will be reduced. As the correlation’s statistical significance.

      • To MofB at 3:13
        The models are not wrong. They fit the past data very well.
        What is wrong are the predictions. If temperature anomalies stay about what they are now there will be more deviations between the predictions from the models and reality. It is beginning to show up but not enough so far for the modelers to adjust the models. They simply claim not enough time yet.

        If you want to claim that the models are wrong, you need to run your analysis with both the CO2 concentrations vs. the temperature anomalies using a curve fitting analysis other than simple linear regression. You need an analysis that will show you a deviation from a steady increase of temperature while CO2 continues to be steadily increasing, that is a plateau will start because temperature anomalies are no longer increasing. From my simple linear regression analysis, the deviation will start at about 1990 and accentuates around 1998 to then becomes a flat line.

        This is why my R squared values started decreasing for the data 1990-2014 (24 years span) and for 1998-2014 (16 years span). They decreased not because the lower number of data points (as suggested by rooter at 4.25 below) but because the increase in temperature anomalies themselves is no longer happening. Clearly the temperature anomalies between 1990 and 2014 are higher than between 1959 and 1990, so yes global warming (so to speak) did increase.

        I see that you always plot the CO2 data from the same source I used when plotting your temperature anomalies. You need plot the annual average, not the monthly average. The monthly average is just a distraction. Plotting the annual average will give you a nice straight line, calculate the R squared value. It will a very high value, close to 1.0. It will then become easy to compare both trends, there is obviously no trend (your R squared values for temperature anomalies are zilch) for temperature but a very strong one for CO2.

        In my assessment, the issue is not the models and not the warming. The issue is did CO2 caused it? It may have caused it at the beginning or it may just be a coincidence but since 1990 its influence, if indeed it was the cause, has greatly diminished and perhaps about to disappear completely.

    • Yes, we’ve heard the mantra before from some without portfolio –‘We know better’, ‘ peer-review is corrupt’ ‘All the World’s Institutions are ‘committing fraud’, or ‘in a conspiracy’ (truly, remarkable since they ALL must be in on it– i.e., the Academies of Europe, U.S., Japan, and Asia, which ALL conclude AGW.)

      Do the Science Academies beat their members to prevent them from acknowledging your ‘work’?

      • “Some without portfolio”?

        Well, that certainly includes warrenlb. Doesn’t it?

        This needs repeating, since it has not sunk into warren’s noggin yet:

        The bottom line is this: CO2 has simply not done what was incessantly predicted…

        Explain that, warrenlb. Explain why the climate alarmist crowd – both amateurs and professionals — have been flat wrong every step of the way.

        Explain that. And explain why your incessant predictions of accelerating sea level rise, and vanishing polar bear populations, and ocean “acidification”, and increasing severe weather events, and runaway global warming, and every other alarming prediction have FAILED.

        You have been wrong every step of the way. No exceptions. But you still argue like the Black Knight, with your arms and legs cut off; just your yapping head left, trying to tell normal people that you have the answers.

        You don’t. You are just another site pest who adds traffic here, but adds nothing else worthwhile.

        If you think you know so much, then make a prediction that happens. Because so far, none of them have come true. You have been flat wrong all along. Only your overly sensitive ego stands in the way of admitting it.

      • One more thing. warrenlb trots out this old chestnut again:

        Do the Science Academies beat their members to prevent them from acknowledging your ‘work’?

        They do the modern equivalent: they refuse to provide membership communications, therefore they control the message. A simple majority of a tiny handful of self-serving board members makes statements without ever consulting their dues-paying members. There is never a vote of the membership allowed. Why do you think that is?

        The reason is obvious: a few in power do not want to hear what the majority thinks.

        Aside from the fact that your comment is the same old appeal to corrupt authorities fallacy, you keep using it. And I know why. It’s because you’ve got nothin’ else. The planet certainly does not agree with you, and Planet Earth is the ultimate Authority.

        Planet Earth has been making a rank fool of you and your ilk for more than eighteen years now, and every day that passes you look more foolish. When your house of cards collapses you will merely slink away silently. Because unlike a skeptical scientist, you are incapable of admitting what everyone else here knows: you have been flat wrong all along.

      • warren:
        What was your graduate degree?
        In what field of study? Please be more specific than “science”.
        What was the subject of your master’s thesis?
        Have you published anything since?
        If so, what?
        If not, please tell us why you haven’t been publishing.
        Have you published anything, anywhere?
        Use your real name so we can all do a google scholar search on your work, please.

  43. It cracks me up that we are told the science is settled, except for the dozens of papers trying to explain the lack of warming. Meanwhile we are told everything is on track for cataclysm despite the fact it simply isn’t warming anywhere close to projected rates. When this is pointed out (that warming isnt tracking what was expected) people show up to assert that this is wrong we just dont get it!! Except we have dozens of papers trying to explain it, lol. The simplest answer is climate sensitivity is drastically over stated. Lysenko would be proud.

  44. The combined Hadcrut4, NCDC and GISS chart shows total warming from 1947-2014 at 0.65 C over 67 years or 0.01 C per year. From NOAA dataset, the average year-to-year (consecutive years) warming is 0.07 C from 1880-1945. This is natural variability because this is just one-year temperature changes before man emitted large amounts of CO2. Notice the natural variability is 7 times greater than the 0.01 C per year warming trend in 1947-2014 attributed to man. It is silly to assert than nature cannot produce this observed warming attributed to man.

    It’s like a wrestler and a little boy pushing a cart. The wrestler can exert 7 times greater force than the boy but the cart’s motion is attributed to the boy. It is one thing to assert that the little boy is pushing so there must be some effect on the cart. It is another thing to assert we are 95% sure the boy is in control of the cart.

    According to IPCC the anthropogenic radiative forcing (including uncertainties) of CO2 since pre-industrial era is 1.83 W/m^2 while aerosols -2.7 W/m^2. Therefore we are not even sure if the aerosols cancelled the effect of CO2. It is simply assumed that CO2 has an effect on climate.

  45. I am grateful to Lored Monckton for his reply, however it leaves several substantive points unanswered. I am sure we would all appreciate unambiguous, and preferably concise answers to these points of fact:

    CO2 concentrations have indeed continued to rise at a gently exponential rate. Global warming, though, has occurred at half the best-estimate rate predicted by the IPCC on its business-as-usual scenario.
    Mr Clark excuses the IPCC by saying it could not predict that controls on CFCs would be introduced or that the Soviet Union would collapse. However, CFCs – had they not been controlled – would have made virtually no difference to global temperature over the 25-year period. And the Soviet Union, with a relatively small population, was not one of the world’s great emitters. Its temporary collapse also made little difference. So business as usual is precisely what occurred, but business-as-usual warming is precisely what did not occur.

    That is a qualitative response, however we can do better: as we are now some way into the period under discussion, 1990-2025, we have the actual numbers. Remember that the IPCC published 4 scenarios A-D in AR1, and they also gave forcing projections. Scenario A, described as ‘Business As Usual’, as there were few emissions controls in place in 1990, had CO2 forcing at 1.85W/m2 in 2000 and 2.88 in 2025, while scenarios B-D all had around 1.75 and 2.3 respectively. This information is in Table 2.7, page 57.

    According to Lord Monkton’s recent paper, CO2 forcing had only risen to 1.82W/m2 (whatever the reason) by 2011, below the IPCC Scenario A figure for a decade earlier and far more closely in line with Scenarios B-C. Under these scenarios the IPCC report predicted rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade (Scenario D) . ((Policymakers summary page xii)

    Actual outcome: 0.13C/decade.

    In another thread, His Lordship agreed that Scenario A turned out to be an overestimate, not because the models were wrong but because the forcings were overestimated,

    I had not recalled that IPCC had made its 1 k by 2025 prediction under Scenario A. However, Scenario A was its business-as-usual scenario, and it had incorrectly predicted a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred.

    So he self-contradicts, business as usual is not what occurred, as his own paper makes clear. The IPCC cannot predict how emissions and hence GHG forcings will evolve, which is precisely why they run the models against a variety of scenarios. In my book, to describe a single scenario, which never transpired as ‘the’ IPCC prediction, and to ignore those which did, well if it is not misrepresentation, what is it?

    I would also invite comments on the IPCC projections from AR3, which I linked. For 1990-2010 under the Scenario A2, which most closely matches reality, the IPCC model projections matched exactly the linear trend in HADCRUT4. Remarkable, no?

    I would also be grateful for a quote or page reference where I can find the following:

    – IPCC AR5 stating that 0.4K for the next 30 years years or 0.14K /decade is their ‘best estimate’.

    – IPCC stating that they have abandoned climate modelling.

    – An example, in the code or documentation for a climate model of it applying the Bode equation (rather than references to the analysis of the outputs as an emergent property of the model after the fact). I won’t bothering asking a third time.

    I would also be grateful if he (or anybody) could confirm that the scenario used to produce the plot of model outputs vs observations in the Christy graph was RCP8.5. Perhaps his Lordship could also confirm that he described the underlying assumptions for this scenario as ‘implausible’ and ‘unrealistic’ in his recent Science Bulletin article. Also, perhaps he would explain why he posted this chart without mentioning that the CMIP recommend that ‘predictive RCP values should not be used before a date of 2006 and that historical values should be used for modeling of the recent past’? And I would also be interesting in learning the name of the dataset which is ‘highly questionable and defective’..

    All perfectly cogent questions, I think, capable of a brief, factual response, which I respectfully await.

  46. I should also respond to this.

    He does not say where he gets his generally higher interval of supposed IPCC predictions from, so I cannot comment on them.

    My assertion was, for near-term warming – ‘The IPCC give a range of warming rates, from 0.12°C to 0.42°C per decade.’ My source was Chapter 11 of IPCC AR5 WG1, final draft. Exact words:

    Overall, in the absence of major volcanic eruptions—which would
    cause significant but temporary cooling—and, assuming no significant
    future long term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely (>66% probability)
    that the GMST anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to
    the reference period of 1986–2005 will be in the range 0.3°C to 0.7°C
    (expert assessment, to one significant figure; medium confidence). This
    range is consistent, to one significant figure, with the range obtained
    by using CMIP5 5 to 95% model trends for 2012–2035. It is also consistent
    with the CMIP5 5 to 95% range for all four RCP scenarios of
    0.36°C to 0.79°C, using the 2006–2012 reference period, after the
    upper and lower bounds are reduced by 10% to take into account the
    evidence noted under point 5 that some models may be too sensitive
    to anthropogenic forcing. The 0.3°C to 0.7°C range includes the likely
    range of the ASK projections and initialized predictions for RCP4.5. It
    corresponds to a rate of change of GMST between 2012 and 2035 in
    the range 0.12°C to 0.42°C per decade

    Page 1010.

    I look forward to learning where IPCC AR5 gives 0.4C / 30 years as its ‘best estimate’.

    • Phil Clarke

      Your problem seems to be that you are searching IPCC AR5 when the statements were in IPCC AR4 and not revoked in the AR5.

      IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 can be read at
      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

      It says there

      The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

      The emissions have been “within the range of the SRES scenarios” and, therefore, the IPCC statement I quote is perfectly consistent with the statements you have queried.
      In plain words, the IPCC statement says global temperature was expected to rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

      This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

      So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 5 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

      Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

      This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum because they all involve “committed warming” which does not exist.

      Richard

  47. Global warming is still on the ‘Great Shelf’ (poste on WUWT 2 days ago January 28, 2015)

    Annual report on global temperature change to December 2014

    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    “Global warming is not happening at anything like the predicted rate. The divergence between prediction and reality is now severe. Despite revisions in the terrestrial datasets calculated to cause an unmeasured increase in the warming rate of recent decades, the gulf between the exaggerated predictions in the models and the far less exciting observed reality is in danger of becoming an abyss.”

    [. . .]”

    You know that all climate /environmental staffs everywhere supporting climate change cannot avoid this point expressed by Monckton and also by many others.

    So what strategy will those climate / environmental staffs create to cover the period from now to COP Paris meeting this fall? I think they must say that even if there is no significant climate change problem, still governments must set a precedent to block humans from increasing their already too strong dominance of nature here on Earth.

    That strategy can be defeated by open debate on human wealth.

    John

  48. @DBStealey.
    I said:
    “Do the Science Academies beat their members to prevent them from acknowledging your ‘work’?”

    To which you replied:
    “They do the modern equivalent: they refuse to provide membership communications, therefore they control the message. A simple majority of a tiny handful of self-serving board members makes statements without ever consulting their dues-paying members. There is never a vote of the membership allowed. Why do you think that is?”

    To which I now reply: There are 38 National Science Academies in the World. ALL conclude AGW. How on Earth do you have a clue that they all override their membership in the way you describe? it sounds as if you’ve invented yet another conspiracy theory to deflect admission that all the World’s Science concludes AGW.

    • Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

    • warrenlb

      I see you are still asserting the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’ which seems to be the only ‘arrow in your quiver’.

      OK. I refer you to this peer reviewed publication by Richard Lindzen (i.e. the probably foremost living climatologist) which details the usurpation of Scientific Institutions by named green activists.

      If you actually believe the nonsensical twaddle you have been peddling then the link I have provided is – according to your belief in ‘appeal to authority’ – crushing and complete refutation of your twaddle. The link is also a cogent and shocking read.

      Richard

      • Interestingly you back up your ‘appeal to authority’ statement by making an appeal to authority.
        Lindzen’s paper was a conference paper, not peer reviewed.

      • Phil.

        Interestingly, you again demonstrate that you cannot read.

        I have repeatedly refuted the ”appeal; to authority’ fallacy in this thread but the troll posting as warrenlb has ignored it all so I again pointed out that it is a logical fallacy then addressed him in his own terms saying

        If you actually believe the nonsensical twaddle you have been peddling then the link I have provided is – according to your belief in ‘appeal to authority’ – crushing and complete refutation of your twaddle. The link is also a cogent and shocking read.

        And the troll who posts as Phil. responds to that saying

        Interestingly you back up your ‘appeal to authority’ statement by making an appeal to authority.

        Phil., even by your execrable standards, that response is asinine.

        You assert that Lindzen’s paper was not peer reviewed. I linked to a site which provides the paper in a very readable format. This is a link to it in a peer reviewed journal.

        Richard

  49. @warrenlb:

    You are just repeating what you said before. If you want a different answer, ask them over at Hotwhopper. Your comment will probably double their traffic. And it is you who deflects as usual, Mr Projection.

    Show us any of those “38” organizations that have provided for a fair, open, up and down vote of their membership on a question such as:

    Are human emissions causing most global warming?

    If you want to be fair about it, allow for a spirited debate on their websites, for a few months prior to the polling. Then we will see which way the wind blows. Members need to be exposed to all points of view to make an educated decision. But as of now, the membership is not allowed to have a say. There are comments here from long time Science subscribers who were never asked for their vote. Frankly, I question the veracity of any polling that is done internally on the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

    But of course, they won’t allow the members to have a fair say in the matter. They like things just the way they are: with a simple majority of a small handful of people who happen to be directors, guiding the organization into the corner they want them in. They want to be able to [falsely] claim to speak for the entire membership.

    I could easily do the same thing. I’ve been on boards, both as an officer, and as President. I know how easy it is for even one activist to put the board on record supporting something like this. It’s a piece of cake, and only the most credulous believe that it represents the thinking of the rank-and-file membership.

    Prof Richard Lindzen, who has been on his share of boards, has written about the same corruption. Here is one example. See Sec. 2.

    The whole thing has been heavily politicized. How could a worldwide group of organizations all have the same exact message, on something so fact-free? Only the most naive would believe it is strictly science.

    You can argue ’till you’re blue in the face, but you will still appear to be just as foolish if you try to convince people that this “poll” is based on scientific evidence. It isn’t. It is based on politics. You only believe it because it fits your confirmation bias. But most folks here are smarter than that.

    • I have never been on boards.
      The AMA (American Medical Association) board concluded in the mid 1950 that homosexuality was a disease!!
      I am not kidding.

    • Quit bird dogging my posts. I’ve been an officer, on executive boards, and President of both local and a statewide organizations. I know how it works. If that bothers you, tough.

  50. I think, warrenlb, that you have a very big problem.
    “The fact that 38 National Science Academies in the World. ALL conclude AGW” is irrelevant and wrong.
    This is not what they concluded. They concluded that on the basis of the data available at that time, it was obvious the “global temperature” from any data set available indicated some, very small (the amount depending on the different data sets) was an increase over the years. You don’t need to be a National Academy of Science to conclude this. It was obvious. So indeed GW, however small it was and still is.

    But now in front of global warming (GW) you want to add the letter A, so we have AGW. This is a different beast. In order to add the letter A in front of GW you need to provide a correlation between CO2 (implied in your A letter) and temperature increase (GW).

    Your big problem is you can’t do this now. You can’t provide us with any, and I mean any, evidence that the temperature anomalies of any data set you want to pick will show an increase in their values during the past 20 years (I will give you a break, during the past 16 years) that can be correlated with the obvious steady nice increase in CO2 (data set from Mauna Loa), the A part of GW. So there is simply no correlation between the A part and the GW part.

    But maybe I am wrong, the Academies do have such a correlation. So just show it and we will agree with you.

    • You are indeed 100% wrong. ALL the academies conclude Anthropogenic Global Warming, NO exceptions. This includes the G8+5, the National Academy of Sciences (US) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society, and many others. In addition EVERY ONE of the worlds scientific professional societies maintain a published position concluding AGW. Plus NASA and NOAA. About 200 Organizations. NONE dispute the A in AGW.
      A little hard for you to accept? Check it out by on their individual websites, or find a summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

      • In fact, the Russian academy, after a conference in 2004 in Moscow at which Dr Andrei Illarionov invited scientists from both sides of the debate, decided that global warming was a non-problem. However, shortly thereafter Tony Blair told Mr Putin that if he would only agree that global warming was a problem Blair would arrange for Russia to be given most-favored-nation status at the World Trade Organization. Putin told the academy to change its mind.

        A group at the Japanese academy of sciences has said that belief in the exaggerated predictions of the IPCC is like believing in astrology.

        The Royal Society originally issued a full-on stupid statement of religious belief in the supposed problem, but then issued a more temperate statement, and has now reverted to type with an extreme statement again.

        The academies, however, are largely political these days. The closest thing to true science is done in the learned journals. And there the tiny fraction of all papers that addresses the single question that really matters in this debate, which is how much warming we are likely to see, are increasingly coming to conclusions similar to those in my paper at scibull.com: that there will be 1 K warming per CO2 doubling, or perhaps less.

  51. I just did check your summary site you stated will show me a correlation between CO2 increases (A) and temperature anomalies increases (GW).
    There is NO correlation presented between A and GW at this site. A big ZERO.
    The only data presented is the increase in temperature anomalies (GW). There is NO data showing any increase in CO2 data presented at this site. Ignored completely.

    There is NO plot of CO2 vs. Temperature anomalies. NONE a big ZERO.

    Sorry but you need to make sure that what you provide will indeed show this relationship.
    You are relying on “opinions”. I don’t care about opinions and this includes your opinion and my opinion.
    Show me the data, not opinions and the data is a plot showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature anomalies, any set you want to use if you want to claim AGW.

    • What are you reading? I didn’t claim the site showed you any ‘correlations’ or any kind of proof that Man was Warming the Planet. I said the site summarized the state of Scientific Consensus on AGW. And I didn’t make any argument to prove AGW — I claimed all the World’s Institutions of Science concluded AGW.

      Try reading the post one more time –maybe you’ll get it

  52. warrenlb says:

    ALL the academies conclude…&blah,blah, etc.

    What is it about a logical FALLACY that you don’t get?? You’re a one-trick pony with that nonsense. If a million ‘expert’ people told you to go jump off a cliff, would you do it just because they say they’re experts?

    As rd50 told you: you’re relying on opinions. Nothing more. You have no credible facts. You don’t have one single measurement of AGW. Not one! Talk about lemmings! You would follow your ‘experts’ off a cliff, if they told you to jump.

    Scientific skeptics need more than that. We need verifiable, testable facts. We need scientific evidence. But since you have none, you keep hounding everyone with your appeal to authority fallacy. It’s fallacy, see? Do you understand what that means? Apparently not. Either that, or you’ve got nothin’ else.

    And socks, quit bird dogging my comments. You’re just as worthless. Posting in all bold won’t get your questions answered, either.

    Really, neither of you jamokes has anything in the way of facts or evidence. The onus is on you to produce verifiable facts and scientific evidence to support your runaway global warming “theory”. But so far, you’ve both failed to produce. Go away, and leave the discussion to the adults. All you’re doing is cluttering up the thread.

    • Warren LB should recall the words of al-Haytham, regarded in the East as the co-founder of the scientific method. He was a philosopher of science, mathematician and astronomer in 11th-century Iraq. He said this about “consensus” in science: “The seeker after truth does not put his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable or widespread: instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to scrutiny, inquiry, investigation, checking, checking and checking again. The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow.”

      TH Huxley made a similar point, as have many other true scientists. There is a consensus on the political and academic Left, but that should not be confused with science.

    • So DBStealey continues to avoid dealing with the claim in my post that all Scientific Institutions conclude AGW, by insisting I prove AGW itself.
      Since he does not provide falsifying evidence, we conclude he cannot, and there is none.

      • Your ridiculous appeal to authority logical fallacy does not even pass the most basic of challenges.

        How many scientists from those scientific institutions signed a position statement on climate change?

      • Dbstealey

        One…..we’re not asking for much.
        Can you name one scientific institution that rejects AGW?
        ..

    • You say: “Scientific skeptics need more than that. We need verifiable, testable facts.”

      I believe real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
      Your claims, in contradiction of ALL the worlds institutions of science — the Academies, Scientific Professional Societies, major Universities, NASA, NOAA, and 99% of peer reviewed research papers — are extraordinary indeed.

      You have never been able to provide evidence, extraordinary or not, for your vast alleged conspiracy of all the Scientific Institutions of the World.

      That alone should disqualify you from using the title “skeptic.”

      • You keep spamming these ridiculous statements over and over.

        How many scientists from those scientific institutions signed a position statement on climate change?

        99% of peer-reviewed research papers say no such thing.

  53. So…

    Either every scientific academy and professional organisation in the world has been co-opted and railroaded by zealots, and amongst all of the craven memberships, who must comprise pretty much the entire global scientific enterprise, and who secretly know AGW to be false, none has spoken out.

    OR

    The most distinguished scientists in the world have examined the evidence and found it sufficiently compelling to issue statements endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC and urging action.

    Occam’s Razor ….

    And still I await enlightenment on where the IPCC gave 0.4C/ 30yrs as their best near-term estimate – as clearly represented above.

    • Not you too, Phil!

      You need logical fallacies to support the fact that Planet Earth is making monkeys out of the alarmist cult? Didn’t you see the spanking warrenlb has been getting for that illogical desperation?

      You know, we could do the same thing, if we wanted to. For example, here is an open letter to the UN from 100 scientists, debunking the IPCC’s claims. It’s from 2007 — today they could probably get 500 signatures. And if I sicced Poptech on you, you would be buried in similar refutations. Last I heard, he had thousands of scientists’ names debunking your alarmist nonsense.

      When you have to resort to logical fallacies to make your case, that means you don’t have sufficent facts. That’s obvious. We don’t need to do that, because we have facts, data, and logic. We’re scientific skeptics of the MMGW conjecture, we have a mountain of evidence deconstructing the climate scare.

      You faied to prove your point. Give it up, Phil, you’re only digging a deeper hole.

    • It is like all alarmists get the same nonsensical talking points they spam in repeated ignorance.

      How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?

  54. Your big problem is you can’t do this now. You can’t provide us with any, and I mean any, evidence that the temperature anomalies of any data set you want to pick will show an increase in their values during the past 20 years

    20 years

    NASA linar trend +0.13C/decade
    HADCRUT4 linear trend +0.1C/decade

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:240/plot/gistemp/last:240/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:240/trend/plot/none

    16 years

    NASA +0.1C/decade
    HADCRUT4 +0.07C/decade

    Just for laughs

    RSS (the most ‘pause-ey’ dataset)

    Linear trend 1990-2005 0.24C /decade

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2005/trend

    IPCC AR3 forecast (Scenario A2, the most realistic) : 0.175C /decade

    • To Mr. Clarke

      The problem with Wood For the Trees site is that it will provide a straight line regardless.
      Obviously it is very easy to use and many use it. I have nothing against it as a starting point.
      Because you see a straight line going up or down does not mean anything until you provide a statistical analysis.
      The simplest case is linear regression and you want to calculate what is called R squared, the coefficient of determination . This value is always between 0 and 1. 1 is perfect correlation. Unless you provide this value you have nothing. Just by looking at your plots your R squared values will be well below 0.5 and so you have nothing. Just one caveat about R squared values. If the value is very low, it may be that you have outliers. So in such cases look at the plot. In your case you don’t. So you can use your straight line to show an increase in temperature anomalies, but unfortunately your R squared is too low to conclude anything.
      I know what you will tell me. You don’t have enough data points yet. Do you know how many data points you need to have an R squared value of 1.0. If there is a perfect correlation between two variables, just ask a statistician how many data points you need.

      But the above is only half of your problem. The other half is coming.

      Suppose that there is indeed a rise, however small, in temperature over the last 16 or 20 years period.
      The other half of your problem is to demonstrate that it is due to CO2. No? Remember you are not done, you need AGW, not GW over the years.
      So, try it. You have the CO2 data from Mauna Loa for the same years you plotted you temperature anomalies.

      Before you try a linear regression between CO2 and your temperature anomalies, run a linear regression of the CO2 data vs. year just like you did for your temperature series. Take a look, calculate R squared. It will be very high, 0.9 something. But don’t stop here, take only the last 5 years of the CO2 data, run a linear regression again, calculate R square again. What is the number? Can you see now how many data points you need?

      Now that you have done the above with the CO2 data, plot CO2 on the X axis and temperature anomalies on the Y axis. Now what do you get? What is the R squared value ? Once you get the results, you can now present them and we can see how convincing your argument is that CO2 increases caused temperature increase.

      If you really want to see what is happening between CO2 and temperature anomalies, without arbitrarily selecting a starting year, start with the year when CO2 is available from Mauna Loa, 1959. Just do linear regression again. You should get a fairly good R squared value. But now look at the plot. You should see that despite the fact that temperature is increasing as CO2 is increasing, at one point, around 1990 or so, things begin to change, temperature is not increasing so rapidly. So now what you need to use is nonlinear regression, this will avoid selecting a particular year as a starting point for linear regression.

      You have easily available all the data, if you are not very familiar with statistical analysis bring the data with you to a statistician for help. Nothing like doing the work yourself to see what is happening. After doing this I think you will read the IPCC reports with a grain of salt.

  55. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

    So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 5 years by about 0.4°C.

    Factually wrong, I fear. the NASA data shows a linear trend of > 0.1C/decade, and we are only 75% of the way through the period. It is statistically dubious to draw conclusions from periods of this duration.

    • Phil Clarke

      I see you have tried to address my refutation of your twaddle without admitting it exists!

      In my refutation I wrote

      There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

      So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 5 years by about 0.4°C.

      and you have attempted to nit-pick by replying

      Factually wrong, I fear. the NASA data shows a linear trend of > 0.1C/decade, and we are only 75% of the way through the period. It is statistically dubious to draw conclusions from periods of this duration.

      Say what!?
      Are you really trying to claim I was “factually wrong” to say the year 2015 is “way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century” ” when you admit it is 75% of the period?

      And all the various time series of global temperature show no discernible trend different from zero at 95% confidence this century.

      And if it were true that the rise were a linear trend of > 0.1C/decade (it is not) then my statement would still be true. As I said in my response to your questions

      The emissions have been “within the range of the SRES scenarios” and, therefore, the IPCC statement I quote is perfectly consistent with the statements you have queried.
      In plain words, the IPCC statement says global temperature was expected to rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

      You are wrong. Pretend you are a man and admit it.

      Richard

  56. Phil Clarke

    At January 31, 2015 at 3:48 am you wrote

    And still I await enlightenment on where the IPCC gave 0.4C/ 30yrs as their best near-term estimate – as clearly represented above.

    That is a falsehood which you have not retracted despite your making several subsequent posts in the following hour.

    At January 31, 2015 at 3:32 am I here I replied to your queries and provided reference, link, quotation and explanation.

    Perhaps you could take a break from trolling and address responses to your pointless questions instead?

    Richard

  57. “…varied by little more than 3 Cº or 1% either side of the long-run mean, rule out the absurdly extreme feedback….”

    And for the last billion years, the unbroken chain of life on earth itself attests to the remarkable stability, even including the pH range of the oceans. Here are photos and article on cephlopoda from the Cambrian ~500Mybp to present. I have a specimen of orthoceras about a foot long (they grew to over a metre in length) in limestone from central Saskatchewan serving as garden accent (sorry no photo), but here is a link:

    http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/gallery/image/35153-ordovician-cephalopod/

  58. It is obvious to some, but apparently not all, that CO2 and temperature moving up and down together actually proves a lack of causation.

    If you assume that CO2 is a forcing, then its units (per unit area) are e.g. Watts, aka Joules/sec. Temperature times the effective thermal capacitance (and appropriate scale factor) is energy, e.g. in Joules. To appropriately compare the two requires the time-integral of the CO2 forcing so you are comparing Joules from CO2 forcing to Joules from temperature change.

    If you get into this, you might decide that perhaps there is some ‘break even’ level of CO2. The ‘break even’ level could always be adjusted so the beginning and ending temperatures are met. But if you then select a different time period and do the same procedure you will get a different ‘break even’ level. A third different time period would produce yet another ‘break even’ level. Clearly more than one ‘break even’ CO2 level is nonsensical.

    The conclusion from all this must be that CO2 has no significant effect on average global temperature.

  59. If anyone here wants to be informed most accurately as to what the evidence shows about the Climate’s behavior, how would he go about choosing which source(s) to go to?

    1) Select the most qualified researchers and listen to what they had to say?
    2 Select the researchers you know will tell you what you want to hear?
    3) Select one without portfolio?
    4) You don’t ask others?
    5) Ignore the science?

    Anyone want to give it a go?

  60. @richardscourtney.

    You say:
    “You assert that Lindzen’s paper was not peer reviewed. I linked to a site which provides the paper in a very readable format. This is a link to it in a peer reviewed journal”

    The Journal you linked to is ‘Euresis’. Euresis says in its header: “This journal stems from the wish to provide an opportunity to share with the largest number of people the experience of the conferences and workshops that are part of the activities of the Euresis Association”

    Your claim was incorrect: Lindzen’s paper is still a conference paper, not accepted for peer-reviewed publication.

    • I just noticed warrenlb’s pathetic attempt to denigrate the world’s premier living climatologist, Prof Richard Lindzen. Here is Lindzen’s CV. I count about twenty dozen peer reviewed papers.

      Start reading, warren. Take your time.

      • Warrenlb was not denigrating Lindzen. He was pointing out that the reference paper was not peer-reviewed.

    • warrenlb, the Euresis Journal reviews all papers before publication.

      “Euresis Journal is edited and run by an Editorial Board including members of Euresis Scientific Committee. The Editorial Board, with the help of external experts, reviews all manuscripts.

      http://www.euresisjournal.org/default.asp?pagina=406

      Conference papers can be peer-reviewed depending on the journal, so you cannot use that as an argument.

  61. warrenlb

    Lindzen is an authority above compare.

    You – only YOU – claim that ‘appeal to authority’ has merit. So, according to you Lindzen’s paper is incontrovertible whether or not it is what you consider to be peer reviewed.

    Richard

  62. @warrenlb:

    Even though this is just more of warrenlb’s ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy, and even though he certainly does not want to be “informed most accurately”, since his mind is made up and closed tight… just for the fun of it, I’ll go with #1:

    1) Select the most qualified researchers and listen to what they had to say

    Here is a list of more than 1,350 published scientists who factually dispute warrenlb’s climate alarmism nonsense.

    Every one of them is named. So, if warrenlb can come up with an equal number of peer reviewed climate alarmists by name, we can have a discussion. But if he can’t, then he’s overstepped once again.

    Finding that list took just a couple of minutes. So, warrenlb:

    …on your mark

    …get set…

    GO!

    ☺ ☺ ☺

  63. I see upthread that warrenlb would like to disqualify me. Sorry, warren, that just shows how impotent you are. warrenlb’s comment is strong evidence that he’s immune to reason. We don’t even need to look at his preposterous claim that global T is rising ‘3º per century’ to see that warrenlb lost the debate a long time ago. Or: “that as long as Man burns fossil fuels the Climate will continue to warm.” The planet itself — the only true Authority — is busy debunking warrenlb’s claims.

    As usual, warrenlb has the Scientific Process Method turned upside down and backward. He keeps futilely attempting to paint skeptics into a corner, by demanding that we have to prove his negative. We don’t — because skeptics have nothing to prove. Warren still doesn’t understand that the onus is entirely on the alarmist cult, because it is their conjecture that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming [ie: warren’s ‘3º/century’ global warming], therefore they [not scientific skeptics] need to post evidence supporting their alarming conjecture, because:

    Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.

    As to warrenlb’s conjecture claiming that human emitted CO2 is causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the falsified claim that there has been an alarming spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so.

    Empirical [real world] evidence falsifies both of those claims, so warrenlb tries to turn the Scientific Method upside down. [Trenberth tried the same thing re: the Null Hypothesis. But he failed, too.]

    Neither warrenlb nor any other climate alarmist has produced any credible measurements proving that AGW exists, therefore it remains merely a conjecture. [In dealing with people like warrenlb, I feel it’s necessary to say once again that I think AGW exists. But it is still a measurement-free conjecture.]

    Those repeated failures are why warrenlb constantly falls back on his logical fallacies: because he’s got nothing else.

    But warrenlb does provide easy entertainment, the same way as playing Whack-A-Mole. See, the mole never gives up, no matter how many times it’s whacked… ☺

    • “We don’t — because skeptics have nothing to prove.”
      ..
      True.

      But you also have proven nothing also.

      • Go away. You’re fixated on me, and you’re still bird-dogging my posts. I thought you had restrained yourself because you nearly stopped for a day or so after I pointed out your mental problem. But four posts in a row today — without any response from me — should tell you something.

        I have no trouble answering every simpleton question you ask. Your problem is that you don’t answer questions, you only ask them. Incessantly. But when you’re provided with answers you always deflect, and nitpick, and bother the grown-ups here. You’re a site pest.

        Next, no one here has any trouble refuting the “97%” nonsense in your link, either. But that stupidity has been asked, answered, and put to bed cold and wet. You just cannot accept the fact that it’s a completely bogus number, and it always will be. In fact, they’re already doing a bigtime climbdown, backing and filling all the way. It’s down to, what, 80-some percent now? That’s a climbdown, son. But it’s still a preposterous number, with no connection to reality.

        And I have no problem wiping the floor with you; you’re just not smart enough. I’ve run circles around you from the get-go. But you are just not important enough any more. So when I ignore you, you should know that I’m laughing at you without responding. You’re just not that important.

        Finally, I am currently playing a game of Whack-A-Mole with another clueless version of you. One game at a time, please. You’re the standby mole.

        @warrenlb: see above. That link is just more 97% nonsense. Only complete fools buy into fanbricated numbers like that. <–[lookin' at you, wlb].

        Next, you apparently believe you have enough intelligence to play word games. You don’t. Trying to put words in my mouth [“Still going with option #2?”] shows how truly pathetic you are. I note you never responded to the thousand-plus peer reviewed publications debunking your alarmist nonsense. Instead: simpleton word games. You lose.

        If you want to be credible, post a verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total global warming. Do it in a way that’s verifiable, testable, and agreeable to all parties. Do it like Ferdinand Engelbeen would do it, with facts and logic. Hey, you would win the next Nobel Prize for that!

        But you’ve got nothin’, except fact-free logical fallacies. As always.

      • 1) ” pointed out your mental problem. ” ………you did? Are you a licensed psychiatrist? You do realize that unless you are, your diagnosis is meaningless.
        ..
        2) “I have no trouble answering every simpleton question you ask” …. I asked you for a citation for your 20x assertion. But you seem to have trouble with that question.
        ..
        3)
        “You’re a site pest. ” …another opinion you have. If you can’t take the heat, you should leave the game.
        ..
        4) ” You just cannot accept the fact that it’s a completely bogus number,” …good….I’ll wait for you to refute the PNAS study.
        ..
        5) Your “climbdown” link is bogus. You can’t compare a Pew survey with a PNAS survey…..nice try, but you lose

        6) “you’re just not smart enough” ….anothe opinion you have. However, seems that you have an inate need to respond to my posts. Obviously I must be striking a very sensitive nerve…otherwise you wouldn’t respond
        ..
        7) ” I’ve run circles around you from the get-go: ….Wow….yes you are running around in circles. Maybe you could post a chart showing all the circles you are going around in. Make sure the x-axis and y-axis are correctly labeled.
        ..
        8) “So when I ignore you, you should know that I’m laughing at you without responding” so why are you responding now?

        9) If you are playing “whack a mole” you’d better put on your glasses, because you haven’t scored a direct hit yet

      • Thank you Mr Dbstealey

        Whenever you start calling people names, it’s a sure sign you’ve got nothing

        [snip. -mod]

  64. @DBStealey.

    An excerpt from David Socrates’ link:

    “Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

    Still going with option #2?

      • You implied, I inferred:

        (My earlier post):
        “So you selected your sources based on their disputation of AGW. Sounds more like option #2. ”

        WHACK!

        (BTW, did you ever take language lessons? If so, who was your teacher? Genghis Khan?)

    • warrenlb, you need to learn to do proper research, as that paper has been refuted by peer-review.

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

      Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian?
      (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 39, September 2010)
      – Saffron J. O’Neilla, Max Boykoff

      Abstract: Assigning credibility or expertise is a fraught issue, particularly in a wicked phenomenon like climate change—as Anderegg et al. (1) discussed in a recent issue of PNAS. However, their analysis of expert credibility into two distinct “convinced” and “unconvinced” camps and the lack of nuance in defining the terms “climate deniers,” “skeptics,” and “contrarians” both oversimplify and increase polarization within the climate debate.

      Expert credibility and truth
      (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 47, November 2010)
      – Jarle Aarstad

      Abstract: Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field “support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers” (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today. However, whereas expert credibility and prominence may dominate the opinion of what is true, it can never alter truth itself.

      Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility
      (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 52, December 2010)
      – Lawrence Bodenstein

      Abstract: The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other’s work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. The authors’ treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority (1). The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all. The authors’ framing of expertise was especially problematic. In a casting pregnant with self-fulfillment, the authors defined number of publications as expertise (italics). The italics were then dropped. Morphing the data of metrics into the conclusion of expertise (not italicized) was best supported by explicit argument in the Discussion section rather than by subtle wordplay. The same applied to prominence, although here the authors’ construct was more aligned with common usage, and of course, prominence does not connote knowledge and correctness in the same way as expertise.

  65. @”Socrates”:

    You know, I can’t count the times I’ve been labeled as the equivalent of a mass murderer. But that’s A-OK with you, isn’t it? Being equated to mass murderers is a lot more insulting than using a 1950’s clown, to show what I think of some comments.

    Next, I wonder why you’re sticking up for someone else… unless you’re a sockpuppet. Or warren’s big brother. Are you either one? “Socrates” is not you real name, is it? When Prof Brown told you that you are using a fake screen name, you didn’t dispute him.

    At least wlb is man enough to not whine complain about it like you do, and he posts under his real name. He gives it back in his own way [“Whack!”], but that doesn’t bother me. Why is that OK with you? You’re fine when I’m on the receiving end of anything.

    I’ve asked you repeatedly to try and control your unusual fixation on me, but apparently you can’t. For just one day you were able to control yourself. But then you started serially birddogging my comments again. Why the personal fixation? Are you frustrated because I keep pointing out that you’ve got nothing? That most of your belief is based on evidence-free assertions? That your climate alarmism is a bunch of fact-free nonsense?

    Stop hounding my comments, please. Ignore them, and I will ignore you. That’s fair, isn’t it? I offered that, and then stopped replying, hoping you would get the message. Didn’t work, though, bird dog. [Oops! My bad.] Only one day, and you were back birddogging again. Not cool.

    I don’t think you were ever in the military, or you wouldn’t be such a delicate flower. The military knows how to handle delicate flowers. [Internet version]

    Why don’t you go and cry to other commenters? There are plenty to pick from, and it seems like you’re pretty well disrespected here. You certainly haven’t made a single convert. Pick someone else to hound. I’m tired of it, because you ask incessant questions, then you parse the answers to death. No one else does that, at least not to your extreme.

    You’re never satisfied. You’re always running interference, and you constantly question things I say as if I am lying about it, by demanding that I prove to you that I’ve been on executive boards, or demanding that I must produce citations for you, or that I prove that I was the twice-elcted President of a statewide organization consisting of tens of thousands of members, etc. I’m many things, but I’m not a liar. Why do you impugn my comments as if I am? It takes two to tango, you know. You’re not some innocent bystander.

    You constantly nitpick any and all answers I give — often posted at your own demand. You endlessly demand answers from me — then when your questions are answered, you nitpick the answers to pieces, like you did right above here in your points 1 – 9. Nobody is wrong about everything, but you just cannot let any answers I give go without nitpicking and attacking. Again, I’m not bothered by that. But you do have a problem, son. I think it’s the fact that the planet is showing that you’re flat wrong. And it is. But you would look even more foolish attacking the planet. So you nitpick everything, in minute detail.

    I understand that you have some problems. You really do. But you would be less unhappy if you just ignored my comments. They’re not meant for you, anyway. Never are. As I’ve said many times, I want to give newer readers here the other side of the argument, lest they believe your globaloney. You could counter with your own facts, but really, you’re very short in that area.

    So I won’t reply to your comments. We’ll see how that goes. For you: just ignore my comments. You will be a lot less unhappy. But if you break the deal… all bets are off.

    • Your accusations against Socrates are hypocritical — you are the biggest hound on this forum. You swoop in on a commenter who isn’t talking with you, unsolicited, with name calling, parsing, and various demands of the kind you never meet yourself –such as refusing to falsify a proposition by a commenter, yet demanding it from others, refusing to verify your resume claims, yet insisting upon it from others, and yet have the gall to complain about being constantly challenged.
      Hypocrisy Is not a basis for earning respect, nor is Metrology a foundation for expertise in Climate Science.

    • Deal?

      Sorry Mr Dbstealy, I’m going to keep your feet in the fire.

      Just post another bogus “chart” and we’ll smell the roasting flesh.

      • OK, fine, jamoke. You won’t even try. Just don’t svivel like you usually do when I point out what a whining little baby you are.

        But I’ll say one thing: you won’t even try to avoid birddogging my posts. You are incapable; there is something wrong with you. I don’t have to be a psychiatrist to see that.

        So bring it on, baby. You can start with your non-existent measurements of AGW.

  66. D Socrates posted the link. I prefer the simpler metric that ALL (100%) of the world’s institutions of science – national science academies, scientific professional associations, major universities, NASA and NOAA– conclude AGW. NO exceptions.

    • warrenlb, you have spammed this appeal to authority logical fallacy repeatedly but it is misleading.

      How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?

    • warrenlb,

      You have a learning disability. You simply cannot understand what a logical fallacy is. Your comment above is a logical fallacy. Einstein would have laughed at you and walked away. So would Feynman, Langmuir, and hundreds of other well known physicists.

      Furthermore: since that is the sum total of your entire, evidence-free argument, you lose the debate. Simple as that.

    • You know Warren, you would think that out of all of the world’s instutions dedicated to science, maybe………maybe one would not accept AGW??. Unfortunately for Mr Dbstealey, there isn’t one.

      • Thanks for the note, David. I’ve never met anyone quite as resistant to facts as DBStealey. I can recommend a fine book to him (except he won’t read it): “Don’t Even Think About It –Why Our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change” by George Marshall.

        IMO, this entire debate is not so much about Science — (if it were, it would be less adversarial)– rather it’s about human psychology — in simplest terms, Confirmation Bias – an inability to accept challenges to one’s worldview.
        I care about the issue because I worked, in part, on Climate Policy and technology in my career, and now teach Climate Science in retirement. Grandchildren are the other reason. They, more than me, will have to deal with the consequences of AGW, and 2nd, the anti science meme is truly dangerous –it’s the source of resistance to the teaching of good science in our secondary schools, of bad attitudes about Science and scientists, and more generally, a conspiratorial view of the world. Not healthy for our kids.
        In any event, I admire your scientific approach –keep it up. In the long run, Science and Reason prevail.

      • Warren,

        You have no credible facts. Only baseless assertions.

        But nice try, thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.

        Now you will disagree because you have made it adversarial with your content-free, evidence-free threadjacking. There’s no doubt any more that you get paid to be a site pest. Why else would you post constantly, throughout the workweek? You’re certainly not convincing anyone here. Paid by the word, are you? Your lack of any credible evidence is all I need to see what’s up.

        Run along now to your boy, whoever it is, and tell ’em you’re getting a really painful spanking by people who have forgotten more than you’ve ever learned about this subject.

      • David, why are you both dodging the question?

        How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?

      • Poptech,

        Correctomundo. They gots nothin’. They have yet to post one single alarmist name contradicting the OISM statement, despite my asking repeatedly for the past week.

        The simple, straightforward OISM statement debunks everything the alarmist crowd believes in.

        If it weren’t for their psychological ‘projection’, and ad hominem attacks against Lord Monckton and others, and their non-stop, baseless assertions, their comments would look like this:

        [ ” … ” ].

      • dbstealey,

        It is really sad they think their appeal to authority logical fallacy is some kind of trump argument. Lets forget the fact of the minuscule number of actual scientists those position statements from those organizations actually represent. It never ceases to amaze me how many alarmists parrot these long debunked talking points.

  67. @Poptech. Phil Clarke gave the best answer to where you want to go:
    SO:
    Either every scientific academy and professional organisation in the world has been co-opted and railroaded by zealots, and amongst all of the craven memberships, who must comprise pretty much the entire global scientific enterprise, and who secretly know AGW to be false, none has spoken out.

    OR

    The most distinguished scientists in the world have examined the evidence and found it sufficiently compelling to issue statements endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC and urging action.

    Occam’s Razor ….

    • waarenlb, you are dodging the question?

      How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?

      The presidents and council members of scientific organizations are not necessarily the most distinguished scientists in the world, if anything they are members who are more inclined to politics. No one is disputing a handful of members of these organizations support your alarmist position on AGW.

      • So Poptech, yours is the proposition that “Every scientific academy and professional organisation in the world has been co-opted and railroaded by zealots, and amongst all of the craven memberships, who must comprise pretty much the entire global scientific enterprise, and who secretly know AGW to be false, none has spoken out.”

        Equivalently, what do you say are the constituents in Chemtrails to prove the Government isn’t conspiring to poison us?

        Occam’s razor……

        Or instead, perhaps you and MofB reject Occams razor and believe the US government is indeed poisoning us with Chemtrails??

      • warrenlb, it is not possible for me to proposition a strawman argument. Now please answer the question

        How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?

    • Warren LB has yet to learn that one cannot apply Occam’s Razor to a proposition – such as the argumentum ad verecundiam – that is fallacious. However simple the fallacious proposition, however much more simpler that proposition is than the truth, that proposition remains fallacious and Occam’s Razor is as inapplicable to the probability that that fallacious proposition is true as the Bode system-gain equation is to the determination of climate sensitivity.

      • @MofB. You misapply the principle. The proposition is quite simple -the World’s Institutions of Science are unanimous in their conclusion of AGW. Nothing more.

        Their are two choices for you:

        Phil Clarke’s First
        Phil Clarke’s Second

        Care to answer?

      • Warren LB is rebarbatively repetitive, and clings pathetically to the shop-worn fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam – the fallacy of appeal to the authority of supposed experts rather than examining whether whether the experts are saying what they are said to be saying and, if so, whether they have legitimate grounds for saying it.

        The Russian Academy of Sciences, under Dr Andrei Illarionov, found that the supposed threat of manmade global warming had been exaggerated. See the reports of its 2004 Moscow conference at which both sides were heard. A group at the Japanese Academy of Sciences has described the naive belief in catastrophic manmade global warming as akin to believing in astrology. A group at the Chinese Academy of Sciences has dismissed the notion that the “missing heat” has gone into hiding in the ocean, leaving us with the conclusion that not as much warming as predicted has been occurring. The Royal Society, having issued a more than usually fatuous climate-Communist statement of true belief in the New Religion, was compelled to rewrite it in far more scientific and cautious terms after four of its Fellows protested.,

        Many scientific academies have become mere taxpayer-funded lobby groups these days, and that their vested interest is in fattening their grant checks by bigging up the scare. But only a fool automatically believes those whose vested interest is in promoting alarm.

    • @warrenlb,

      Is everything you assert wrong? Seems so.

      If it weren’t for using logical fallacies, you wouldn’t have much of anything to say. Your fixation on the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy is amusing. That logical fallacy seems to be in everything you post.

      Next, you falsely assert:

      The most distinguished scientists in the world have examined the evidence and found it sufficiently compelling to issue statements endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC and urging action.

      Wrong. I gave you the CV of the world’s premier climatologist, with at least 240 published, peer reviewed articles. No response as usual from the peanut gallery. That flatly contradicts and falsifies your claim above. Also, there are plenty of scientists who have spoken out, so you’re just blowing smoke as usual.

      Finally, you clearly do not understand what scientific ‘evidence’ is.

      Scientific evidence is not pal reviewed papers, or baseless assertions from people who don’t have a clue, or the output of computer climate models.

      No, ‘evidence’ is verifiable, testable raw data [or adjusted numbers where the adjustments are publicly well documented, and where both the original raw data and the subsequent adjustments are shown every step of the way. Evidence is also verified, recorded, empirical observations.

      You are equally clueless about Occam’s Razor, and you know nothing at all about the climate Null Hypothesis.

      Really, what do you know? Obviously not very much.

      • Mr Socrates should read a little more carefully. The two datasets that rushed out press releases claiming 2014 as the warmest year evaah have admitted that that is less than a 50% probability. The other three principal datasets do not show 2014 as the warmest year.

        Even if the smallish probabilities on some datasets are right, 2014 was warmer by just 0.02 degrees. And the data show that the observed rate of warming in the quarter-century since 1990 is below the IPCC’s entire interval of warming predictions and less than half its central prediction.

        The data show the models were wrong.

  68. To warrenlb

    Yes, I will give a go. Slow night here before the super bowl.

    Here is what you asked:

    “””If anyone here wants to be informed most accurately as to what the evidence shows about the Climate’s behavior, how would he go about choosing which source(s) to go to?

    1) Select the most qualified researchers and listen to what they had to say?
    2 Select the researchers you know will tell you what you want to hear?
    3) Select one without portfolio?
    4) You don’t ask others?
    5) Ignore the science?

    Anyone want to give it a go?”””

    My first goal is simply: your list is wrong.

    The first thing on your list should be:

    1 or 2) Who is the first, and I mean the first, the very first, person to publish in a peer review journal that “burning fossil fuels releasing CO2 and increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration could influence global surface temperature”? And what were the qualifications of this person who published the very first paper in a peer review journal, which included, by the way, the printed review of the peers, with their names? As an aside, can you cite an accepted paper in this field in a peer reviewed journal with the attached written reviews of the peers including their names? Well, this first paper had such. Well worth reading.

    2 or 1) How was this first published paper in a peer review journal received, did anybody use it? Did it influence anything important?

    3) Was this paper cited by serious scientists who came afterward, reviewing not only the paper of this first to publish, but his notebooks to get insights on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, at what locations, under what kind of wind directions, at what locations temperature was measured, including that infamous urban island temperatures should be corrected and why (read pages 235 etc. of his article), by the like Eric From and Charles Keeling. You know these two? Pretty good scientists. They inspected everything he did and published the results of their inspection. Yes this very first scientist gave away everything he accumulated: all his notes, notebooks, calculations, inferences, correspondence, the physical/chemical principles and the physicists and chemists he relied upon who had already started looking into the possible contribution of H2O, CO2 etc. He shared EVERYTHING. Now do you know any current scientist willing to let you inspect their notes, codes, etc. List them if you can.

    These are the questions to ask. You don’t even know the history, the background, how scientists asked questions and deliberated about our global temperature and the physic and chemistry fundamentals involved. As a result you are asking insipid questions.

    So now, I will ask you only two very, very simple direct questions. You should know the answer, no need to search.

    1) Who was this “Father” of this first peer reviewed article proposing that “possibly fossil fuels burning could produce enough of an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere so this could be a positive influence resulting in increasing global temperature” and furthermore concluded that YES it could be and, would you believe it, his final conclusion was YES, a little increase in temperature and a little increase in CO2 would be a very beneficial thing for all of us. So, who was this “Father”. I am not even asking you if you believe what he wrote. I just want to know if you know the name of the “Father” and the peer review journal where it was published.
    So just give your answer, Yes or No. If Yes, name the “Father” and peer review publication with the title of the article.

    2) If you know the name of the “Father” and you read his article, do you agree or disagree with it. Which one do you pick. Agree or Disagree. I don’t even ask you to justify your answer. One or the other. Yes or No

    If you answer NO to the first question, I will then give you who the “Father” is, the title of the article, the peer review journal where it was published, including the written comments of the peer reviewers and the web site you will be able to click on to download a PDF file of this absolutely fabulous first article ever published in a peer review journal, including the peer reviewers comments so you will be able to read everything about the very basics and essentials in this field. Good enough for you? This should have been your first or second question. How did it started or who started it?

    Then after you answer these two questions, I will then give you the qualifications of the “Father”. You are in for a very BIG surprise. Nothing even close to your 5 questions.

    But even if you don’t answer by tomorrow, I will post tomorrow who the “Father” is, a link to the article in the peer review journal, as well as the credential of the “Father”. Maybe some will appreciate the history of how “CO2 from fossil fuels burning can influence temperature and provide, within limits, beneficial effects but no detrimental effects”

    So, read you tomorrow, I hope before the super bowl.
    PS: I can even provide a link to a photograph of the “Father”, very handsome guy.

      • Now this is very funny.
        Your link is so wrong.
        You have absolutely no idea who the “Father” is.
        The “Father” relied on this man, Arrhenius.
        Look again for the first person who published that “fossil fuels…..”
        It was published in 1938 and I promise it will far exceed the requirements asked by warrenlb.

      • OK. My time is up to answer your question warrenlb, January 31, 2015 at 11:30am and again at 7:16 am now.

        Here is the link to the famous Father, first article ever published on whether or not burning fossil fuels could contribute to global atmospheric temperature:

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

        While it was published in 1938, some did think that it was important enough to publish it on line in 2007. The above link.

        I also need to fulfill my promise to you that I would provide you a full answer to your stated 5 questions/requirements you listed in your above post.

        Hard to do this in just a few sentences but here is my promised answer:

        Suppose that a graduating college student wants to enter a graduate program in “climatology”. According to your 5 questions/criteria listed at your post, what should a professor give this student, the absolute best published paper to read in this area concerning the possible contribution of burning fossil fuels to influencing global temperature? Only one paper can be given, not a list.

        There is only one published paper that will not only meet but far exceed anything you would want, your 5 questions/criteria are not even close to what a good professor would require. And a good professor will not only provide “The Paper” but also tell the student to read it, digest it, take a deep breath, read it again and again and come back in about a month to discuss it.

        So here is the title of famous paper which I provided to you via the above link and it provides the following full information on the first page of the article:

        “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature”.
        Published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorogical Society, Volume 64, pages 233-240, by G.S. Callendar, Steam technologist to the British Electrical and Allied Industries Association, (Communicated by Dr. G.M.B. Dobson F,.R.S.)
        Manuscript received May 19, 1937-read February 16, 1938.1C

        Now, you cannot just read the article itself. The publication, as you will see if you download the file, included the comments made by the peer reviewers and their names (can you believe this?). It also provides some answers to the peer reviewers by the handsome Guy, Stewart, and Callendar who well, yes he was “just an engineer” working for the “fossil fuels industry” and obviously not a member of this prestigious society publishing his paper.

        Typical of many science pioneers in previous eras. They had no jobs to support them because they were part of rich families, support from wives, some had support from the governments (or Popes!). Some were professors, or ministers (Darwin), the father of genetics was a monk, the father of the “Big Bang” was a French Belgium priest who came to the USA to get his Ph.D. from MIT, and I will just close with this one, where was Einstein working? These men (and I forget, some women like Marie Curie, Rosalind Anderson) loved science, and it shows in their writings. So, please stop asking insipid questions. There no model to predict who will publish the next big thing. Should I mention more recent big names?

        So now, I gave you “the” paper I would give to a student. Not a list.

        Your turn. Give me “the” paper you would give to a student. Not a list.

        After you give me your paper, I will give you the link to a photograph of the handsome Father. No, it was not Arrhenius!

  69. How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?

    About the same number who have resigned, publicly disagreed or distanced themselves from their organisation’s position statements.

      • Well, since 99%+ of peer-reviewed science journal papers conclude AGW, that means ~99% of scientists actively engaged in research and completing work of the quality that are accepted by their PEERS.
        And the IPCC, which does no research –summarizes those 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers.

        And all the institutions of Science include —-do you remember– 200 National Science Academies & Scientific Professional Associations, all major universities, NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC. ALL conclude AGW, no exceptions.

        I do sympathize –It is hard for some to accept that about all the experts working in the field disagree with their anti-AGW position. -:(

      • warrenlb why are you lying that 99% of peer-reviewed science journal papers support AGW? Are you a computer illiterate like James Powell?

        The IPCC cherry picks papers and fails to include thousands that do not support their alarmist position such as, http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

        How many times are you going to spam the same talking points and not answer any questions?

        How many scientists do those position statements represent?

        Since you refuse to actually engage in conversation I am going to notify the moderators that you are just trolling.

      • warrenlb has now spammed the same talking points 5 times in this conversation alone about scientific organizations, completely avoiding the responses directed at him. It is clear he is only interested in trolling.

        [Reply: And threadjacking. ~mod.]

      • warrenlb,

        It is hard for you to accept reality, isn’t it?

        As I’ve said consistently for many years now, I think AGW exists. The vast majority of scientific skeptics think AGW exists, too.

        But that is not what’s being debated. The debate is over man-made runaway global warming. Because if we were talking about a tiny change in temperature, the debate would have run out of steam long ago, No one is going to be bothered about a small change in temperature, especially on the warm side.

        No, it’s over the wild-eyed claims of people like you: in fact, just yesterday you claimed that because of human CO2 emissions, global temperature is rising by at least 3º per century.

        That is crazy talk. Planet Earth, plus just about everyone else here, is laughing at you.

        Stupid statements like that are the reason you have zero credibility.

      • Phil it doesn’t work that way, most members have no interest in politics.

        Maybe not, however (a) the position statements generally include a summary of the science, in line with the IPCC, check out the AGU statement for an example, and (b) of those who are interested in the ‘politics’, only a tiny handful have expressed dissent or disagreement with their organisation.

        BYW I see your list of ‘peer reviewed journals’ embraces the Jourrnal of Scientific Exploration. Out of interest, what is your viewpoint on Dog Astrology?

        Hee Hee.

      • Phil, guilt by association is not an argument.

        How many scientists do those position statements represent?

        There are exactly two papers on the list from JSE both on climate change.

        Journal of Scientific Exploration is a peer-reviewed general interest journal (ISSN: 0892-3310)
        – Scopus lists the Journal of Scientific Exploration as a peer-reviewed general interest journal
        – EBSCO lists the Journal of Scientific Exploration as a peer-reviewed general interest journal
        – “Manuscripts will be sent to two or more referees” (PDF) – Journal of Scientific Exploration

        You seem confused as JSE debunks astrology. Oh I am sorry, was your nonsensical argument that a journal is defined by any cherry picked paper that is published by it?

        This is why you should not get your talking points from clowns like Bickmore or Mashey.

  70. @Dbstealey, So your position is :

    ‘Earth is warming, Man’s burning of fossil fuels is the cause (or—-% of the cause?) , but the rate of increase is small? Do I have that right?

    What is your position on Climate sensitivity values?

    • No. But nice try.

      Best guess for climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2: <1.0ºC.

      We need that warmth, too. Because cold kills.

      You have stated that global T is rising @3º/century. *SNORT*

      Wrong, though, when you try and put words in my mouth again. There has been no global warming for many years.

  71. So you assert <1.0C. I go with the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5C. Sounds like you're far to the left of the minus 6 sigma tail.

    Oh, by the way, the 'no warming for many years' is a bogus claim, and you as an expert should know that.

  72. @warrenlb:

    You are once again misrepresenting. You wrote that global T is rising at ‘3º/century’. Now you conflate that with the IPCC’s sensitivity number [which has inexhorably been ratcheted down, but never up].

    Asserting bogus claims requires evidence. Post it, or you are wrong… again.

    Keep in mind the definition of scientific evidence. That has nothing to do with the IPCC.

  73. Surface temperatures, which represent the Climate experienced by humans, rose in the 21st century. And starting your trend line in 1998 is a statistical no-no –it was an unusually hot El Nino year.

    Evidence? You never presented any for your baloney <1 C CS estimate. Mr minus 6 sigma.

    • Warrenlb

      Surface temperatures, which represent the Climate experienced by humans, rose in the 21st century. And starting your trend line in 1998 is a statistical no-no –it was an unusually hot El Nino year.

      Congratulations. Of your last 280 replies, that was one of only about 15 that did answer the question with an actual comment … other than the usual simple “appeal to some anonymous pal-review authority” or “The IPCC told me that.”

      • Most of the 15 were in response to my claim that ‘ALL the world’s institutions of science conclude AGW’ and my challenge to falsify the claim if they don’t believe it. When others stop talking about it, I’ll stop responding. And its never been falsified. Want to try?

      • warrenlb

        I refer you to my response similar nonsense you have peddling on another WUWT thread. It is here but making a click may be beyond your capabilities so I copy it to this post to help you.

        warrenlb
        Your post says in total

        Interesting assertions, Can you back them up?
        1) How do you conclude AGW as concluded by all the world’s Scientific Institutions is ‘psuedo science?
        2) How do you conclude only AGW is ‘pseudo’, but the other findings of those Institutions are not? Or do you consider all science concluded by Institutions of Science as ‘pseudo’?

        Science consists of seeking the closest possible approximation to truth by seeking information which falsifies existing understanding then amending or replacing the existing understanding to concur with the found information.

        Pseudoscience consists of supporting existing understanding as being truth and seeking information which supports the existing understanding.

        Please consider if position statements by Institutions represent science or pseudoscience. You will then find the answers to your questions are obvious.

        Richard

        Richard

  74. @richardscourtney. It seems you are still struggling with the concept. To falsify my statement, you only have to produce the position statement, or study, or report, by any one of the 200 Science Academies or Scientific Professional Associations, NASA, or NOAA, that disputes ANTHROPOGENIC GW.

    GOOD LUCK!

    • Anyone with access to the CO2 and temperature data, who was paying attention in first year calculus, and can extrapolate the math to the physical world can falsify the statement that CO2 causes significant warming. I did in my first post and my Jan 31, 6:55 post.

    • warrenlb

      You misunderstand. I am not “struggling” with anything.

      I am laughing at your stupidity which you proclaim is so great you cannot understand you have no argument because your demands are based on a logical fallacy.

      Incidentally, I still await your apology (requested above here) for using that stupidity to make offensive remarks about by health. And my same post explains why your assertions are a logical fallacy when it says

      A “reliable critique of Scientific research” requires an understanding of the scientific method. It does NOT require “a scientific education” that has provided scientific ‘credentials’. Similarly, a reliable critique of a golfer’s performance does not require the commenter having ever played golf.

      I am at least as capable of devising a “position statement” on AGW as the administrators of any scientific institution. However, I would not devise one because any such “position statement” is pseudoscience, and I practice science which includes conduct of reviews of scientific papers presented for publication.

      You are not “struggling” to understand that your question promoted pseudoscience because – you repeatedly assert – you are too thick to understand that ‘appeal to authority’ is a logical fallacy.

      Richard

  75. Agenda 21: The aim; Global governance, the key; Climate Change. Nothing makes sense until you put the two things together.
    Why would Governments persist in pushing the Global Warming/ Climate Change myth with such ferocity? Who benefits?
    If you are a body of people wanting total Global control; you need a Global threat big enough to frighten people to unite and follow a common agenda. You will need to have a Global currency, to control the nations economically. You will need a way to negate democracy, people will not vote for their own demise. If you have a good enough reason to protect the masses, all can be accomplished by regulation. Obama uses the EPA, Europe uses the UN. The Euro, Climate Change, and the new catch phrase Sustainability. Agenda 21 is an ideology that wants to reduce the population by billions, to who’s benefit? 1% of the population owns 50% of the Worlds wealth. Five billion people are superfluous to requirements. The tangled web woven by the elite is only obvious if you are capable of standing back and looking at the big picture. It all makes perfect sense. We are being disposed of discretely by raising the price of food and energy. It’s not accidental; it’s a deliberate ploy to reduce the population.
    As for sustainability , we have farmers ploughing in crops because there is no market for their product. Some sustainability problem eh’.

  76. In reply to Poptech.

    JSE is a joke journal, only slightly ahead of Energy & Environment in the comedy stakes.

    E&E may be reviewed, but by the admission of its Editor, a Emeritus Reader in Geography at Hull, its reviewers are not qualified to assess the hard science:

    I do not claim that I or my reviewers can arbitrate on the ‘scientific’
    truth of publications that the IPCC selects
    as most relevant, but your
    1998 certainly was selected as such and as far as I know, there was no
    protest against its use in global policy advocacy. I may be wrong, for I
    am more in contact with research that is based on worse case scenarios
    (from IPCC) than with basic climate scince research.

    ENERGY&ENVIRONMENT has paid attention to the ‘science’ and ‘social
    science’ controversies associated with the IPCC for over a decade and
    has done so not in order to advance (natural) scientific understanding,
    but with reference to the profound policy relevance of this
    understanding and hence of any controversy about the nature of climate
    and the causes of its variability over time, as well as attempts, in
    some circles, to stifle associated controversies, presumably to make
    life easier for policy and policy relevant research.

    Letter from S. Boehmer-Christiansen to Michael Mann.

    So, scratch E&E from any serious discussion of the science, or indeed truth. Ah, but its a numbers game you’re playing isn’t it? Quantity not quality, you need all the ‘journals’ you can get ….

    • Phil, You failed to answer is JSE a journal that debunks astrology or not? Did you really think your idiotic talking point was some form or a trump argument? LMAO.

      JSE is peer-reviewed despite your ignorance on all things relating to scholarly journals. And yes exactly 2 papers from it that are entirely relating to climate change appear on the list.

      You have just exposed that you know absolutely nothing about the peer-review process, as journals do not have “reviewers on staff” but solicit the services of credentialed experts in relevant fields. Please stop embarrassing yourself like this.

      Energy & Environment is indexed in the ISI and cited 28 times in the IPCC reports.

      You need to learn to do better research on these subjects and stop relying on the nonsense you find using worthless resources like Wikipedia.

      Another out of context quote of editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has it’s meaning frequently distorted, “I do not claim that I or my reviewers can arbitrate on the ‘scientific’ truth of publications that the IPCC selects as most relevant” (Origin: Letter to Michael Mann).

      This is the correct interpretation,

      “I stand by this, truth is far too strong a term for any reviewer to claim when judging a paper on something as complex and poorly defined a set of phenomena as ‘climate’.

      In fact, with reference to the next edition of E&E on paradigms in climate science (edited by Prof. Arthur Rorsch of the Netherlands) I would claim that nobody except people caught inside a fixed paradigm which they mistake for truth, could ever claim to deliver truth by peer review.

      Only time and experience will tell the truth…

      I do however accept that policy cannot always wait for the truth and rarely does, hence the high risk of policies that get it wrong, and the persuasive power of scaremongers, and the attraction to politics and those with political ambitions of fear. Politics has always been much motivated by fear. coupled with the promise of salvation, or rather being able to solve the problem, in our case by more research and green technology and/or changes in life styles. I am a political scientists and see many motives for the IPCC and its supporters to combine ‘alarmism’ with grand solutions.”

      – Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

      How much of an education would you like me to give you on this subject?

  77. I am flattered, however my scientific credentials are limited to a single undergraduate degree in Physics, That equipped me to read and assess scientific literature. I take a layman (and parent)’s interest in the science and its misrepresentations.

    An undergraduate degree is more than sufficient to see Lord Monckton’s output for what it is.

  78. Mr Clarke, having made ten false accusations that I had perpetrated “misrepresentations”, and having been given a spanking for his malevolence or ineptitude (take your pick), is now reduced to mere petulance. Trolls such as he are uninterested in the objective truth, and they lack the scientific knowledge or integrity to recognize it when they see it. The truth is that the models have been proven wrong. They have exaggerated beyond reason. .No amount of sneering can any longer conceal the embarrassing fact that the supposedly “settled” science was and is wrong.

    • So, your Lordship, exactly where in IPCC AR5, may I find them giving 0.4C/30 years as their best estimate for near-term warming, as clearly represented in the head post?

      In response to the name-calling I am perfectly content for readers to see the lack of response to my cogent and factual questions, and make up their own minds as to who is and is not, trolling.

    • On January 29, at 3.49 pm, I replied in detail to Mr Clarke’s ten poisonous but inaccurate and unreasonable allegations of “misrepresentation” on my part. Here are my replies again:

      Mr Clarke, in his customary uncivilized tone, says I have made “misrepresentations”. No.

      First, he complains that I have compared temperature change in the business-as-usual world in which CO2 concentration continues to rise with the exaggerated business-as-usual predictions of the IPCC. CO2 concentrations have indeed continued to rise at a gently exponential rate. Global warming, though, has occurred at half the best-estimate rate predicted by the IPCC on its business-as-usual scenario.

      Mr Clarke excuses the IPCC by saying it could not predict that controls on CFCs would be introduced or that the Soviet Union would collapse. However, CFCs – had they not been controlled – would have made virtually no difference to global temperature over the 25-year period. And the Soviet Union, with a relatively small population, was not one of the world’s great emitters. Its temporary collapse also made little difference. So business as usual is precisely what occurred, but business-as-usual warming is precisely what did not occur.

      Secondly, Mr Clarke says the IPCC’s scenario B was correct. However, scenario B was predicated on the introduction of significant controls on CO2 emissions. Those controls did not occur, which is why CO2 concentration continues to increase at ever more rapid rates, with no corresponding increase in global temperature. The IPCC’s prediction, therefore, failed.

      Thirdly, Mr Clarke cites a paper disagreeing with Maclean et al., who said the frequency of el Ninos and La Ninas would have a significant effect on global temperature trends.

      o let us look at the temperature record. Strong and frequent el Ninos occurred in the period 1976-1998 and there was relatively rapid warming too. Since 1998 the el Ninos have been smaller and less frequent, the la Ninas larger and more frequent, and there has been no statistically-significant warming. And, on any view, my reporting the conclusions of the McLean paper was not “misrepresentation”.

      Fourthly, Mr Clarke complains at my showing the change in the IPCC’s medium-term temperature predictions between the pre-final and final versions of the Fifth Assessment Report, for which I was an expert reviewer. I took the IPCC’s own stated intervals of predictions and plotted them on the two graphs.

      The IPCC has indeed acted on my advice among that of others and greatly reduced its near-term projections. It should have done the same for the longer-term projections. Once again, I made no “misrepresentation”; and Mr Clarke, who had plainly not checked the IPCC’s texts to see where I had obtained the figures from, made this allegation without having first exercised the minimum due diligence to see whether it was true. That is the conduct of a careless, scientifically ignorant troll.

      Fifthly, Mr Clarke complains that the IPCC’s much-reduced mid-range estimate, equivalent to 0.13 K/decade, is a little below the 0.14 K/decade that had been observed in the preceding 30 years. He does not say where he gets his generally higher interval of supposed IPCC predictions from, so I cannot comment on them.

      Sixthly, Mr Clarke correctly takes me to task for having said that January 2005 was the benchmark date for the Fifth Assessment Report’s temperature predictions. This should have read Fourth Assessment Report. This, however, was not a “misrepresentation”: it was, self-evidently, a misprint.

      Seventhly, Mr Clarke says the IPCC do not give firm predictions for periods as short as ten years, so I should not have put any weight on their ten-year prediction. However, they did provide a clear indication of the medium-term warming rate, which is what was displayed in the relevant graph in the head posting, and it should be very clear even to Mr Clarke that the actual trend in global temperature since 2005 is so very considerably below the predicted trend that the IPCC’s prediction cannot thus far be regarded as successful. Once again, there is no “misrepresentation” here. Mr Clarke should mind his language.

      Eighthly, the discrepancy between the IPCC’s much-reduced global warming projections and the continuing failure of the world to warm as ordered is remarkable, but Mr Clarke does not think so. He is entitled to his opinion, I suppose, but he is not entitled to describe my opinion as a “misrepresentation”.
      Ninthly, Mr Clarke complains that John Christy’s exposure of the failure of all 73 climate models studied by him to predict the warming rate in the mid-troposphere is “cherry-picking” of just one region of the atmosphere. However, that discrepancy is serious, for the models predict – wrongly, as it turns out, that there will be twice or thrice the warming in the tropical mid-troposphere that there is at the surface. However, this differential warming is not observed, except in one highly questionable and defective dataset. Besides, it was not appropriate for Mr Clarke to describe as a “misrepresention” by me an accurate research finding by Dr Christy.

      Tenthly, Mr Clarke says the Bode system-gain relation “is not used in any of the models”. The trouble with trolls is that they do not know the literature. So let us begin with Manabe & Wetherald (1967); then look at Hansen (1984), who, in his Table 1, specifically refers to the relation in the caption and demonstrates by worked examples that the equation is indeed in use in his model; then to Hansen (1988), who specifically refers in the paper to “the feedback [system-gain] factor f = 3.4 for our GCM” [general-circulation model].

      Then look at IPCC (2007, p. 631 fn, where – in an admittedly more than usually Sibylline footnote – the equation is explicitly stated. Then look also at Roe & Baker (2007); Bates (2007); Roe (2009) … well, you get the point. Mr Clarke assumes that the reviewers at the Science Bulletin would have allowed us to assert that the equation is used in the models without providing evidence. Well, we did provide evidence, right from the start, as Mr Clarke could have checked. Instead, he falsely – and for the tenth time in a single malevolent and incompetent posting – accuses me of “misrepresentations”. A more adult approach on his part would be welcome in future.

      Those were my replies to Mr Clarke, who has adopted a disfiguringly immature and aprioristic approach to what is not a religious but a scientific subject.

  79. Phil, You failed to answer is JSE a journal that debunks astrology or not? Did you really think your idiotic talking point was some form or a trump argument? LMAO.

    Astrology needs debunking? What about UFOs? The Loch Ness Monster?, Faces on Mars, Or my absolute favourite, the spontaneous weight gain in sheep at the moment of death.?

    Amusing to be accused of ‘talking points’ when the whole Poptech raison d’etre is provide a headline ‘ peer-reviewed papers support AGW scepticism’.

    Except when they don’t. Tol’s ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis’ is listed as a highlight. Of course PT doesn’t state exactly how each paper supports scepticism, however one can surmise it is listed to ‘debunk’ Cook et al’s finding of an overwhelming concensus.

    Tol’s followup paper is not listed, maybe, just maybe, because Tol therein makes his opinion clear ….

    There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.

    Just a numbers game, and the numbers do not add up.

    • Phil, please learn how to properly use the comment system and try pressing the reply button following my comments so we don’t keep restarting this conversation. Other commentators here may want to start a more meaningful conversation rather then watch you be educated on these issues.

      JSE clearly sets out to deal with unusual and unexplained phenomena as they make explicitly clear. Why do you find it unusual to have a scientific journal that deals with X-Files like phenomena? So far however you have failed to show that JSE is not peer-reviewed or that either of the 2 papers from it on my list are not related to climate change.

      Amusing to be accused of ‘talking points’ when the whole Poptech raison d’etre is provide a headline ‘ peer-reviewed papers support AGW scepticism’.

      Why are you lying about me, the purpose of the list and misrepresenting the title? I have no such intent as the primary purpose of the list is to provide a resource for skeptics and the title explicitly says “… Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism”. There is no need to be intellectually dishonest like this.

      It is quite obvious to even the most brain-dead alarmist that Dr. Tol’s paper supports skeptic arguments against Cook et al. (2013). It destroys their paper in every manner imaginable and yet alarmists resort to cherry picking Dr. Tol’s opinion (which he is entitled to) not the overwhelming facts which make up the entirety of his devastating paper.

      Tol’s followup paper is not listed, maybe, just maybe, because Tol therein makes his opinion clear ….There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.

      FYI, your cherry picked statement is not in his followup paper but in the original. Conveniently you leave out the key statement which is actually supported by the analysis and data from his paper,

      The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded.

      Tol’s followup paper is even worse as it makes clear,

      They [Cook et al.] do not dispute
      (1) that their sample is not representative,
      (2) that data quality is low,
      (3) that their validation test is not passed,
      (4) that they mistake a trend in composition for a trend in endorsement,
      (5) that the majority of the investigated papers that take a position on (anthropogenic) climate change in fact do not examine any evidence, and
      (6) that there are inexplicable patterns in the data.

      Your failures are mounting as Cook et al. (2013) is the current laughing stock of the climate science community on par with the garbage Oreskes put out.

      • The first paper to debunk the drivel by Cook et al. was Legates et al. (2013), which showed that the authors had themselves marked just 64 of the 11944 abstracts in their own data file as explicitly endorsing the notion that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade.

        That is 0.5%, not the 97.1% they claimed for that notion in their paper

        Yet two of the co-authors went on to claim in other publications that the consensus in support of their notion was 97%.

        No surprise that police on three continents are investigating.

      • It would be intellectually honest to include a few lines with each paper explaining exactly how and why, in your opinion, it ‘supports scepticism’ rather than leaving the reader to guess. It would be intellectually honest to point out that, while Tol indeed concluded that the Cook paper was flawed, he also states in his paper that the consensus is nonetheless real and likely correct, so honestly speaking, it has no place on the list. It would be intellectually honest to inform readers of the existence of a (peer-reviewed) rebuttal paper and response. And so on.

        My guess is that a truly intellectually honest list would be rather shorter, but equally pointless.

        There again, this venue claims to support open debate, however its most aristocratic contributor declines to respond to the simplest of questions while simultaneously asserting both that the IPCC BAU Scenario A ‘is precisely what occurred’ and that it ‘predicted a far greater rate of forcing than actually occurred’. So one’s expectations for rigour around here are not all that lofty …

      • One agrees with Mr Clarke that it would have been less dishonest if Cook et al. had explained their reasons for marking each of the 64 papers as endorsing the notion that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade. Their slovenly research, however, neglected this elementary step.

        However, we read all 64 abstracts and found that only 41 of them actually endorsed the imagined consensus.

        As for Professor Tol, he is surely right that we cause climate change, but the definition of consensus used by Cook et al was to the effect that we caused most of it rather than some of it. In the present state of climatology, an intellectually honest scientist would accept that we do not know whether Man caused most of the global warming since 1950.

        As for IPCC’s Scenario A, the CO2 trajectory is much as that scenario predicted in 1990, but the consequent forcing was less than predicted. Warming was only half of what was then predicted.

        I answered all of Mr Clarke’s ten points but he has since paid scant attention to the replies. Indeed, his first response was to assert, falsely as usual, that I had not replied at all. So let him now do his own homework.

      • Phil, please stop being intellectually dishonest as the list is a resource not a scientific argument and the papers do not “support skepticism” but rather “support skeptic arguments” which are two different things. It is irrefutable that Dr. Tol’s paper supports skeptic arguments against Cook et al. (2013). His personal opinion (which he is entitled to) on the existence of a consensus is irrelevant to the entirety of his paper and the arguments made in it that are supported by actual data and analysis. Skeptics have absolutely no issue what so ever understanding this.

        If you believe Dr. Tol’s paper supports alarmist arguments then you should encourage more of your friends to cite it but it will never be removed from the list. Also, papers are never removed from the list because of a personal position of an author but only if their paper does not support a skeptic argument or if the paper is retracted by the journal.

        You seem very confused as the list only includes papers that support skeptic argument, this includes any rebuttals from the original authors in defense of their papers (over 70 preceded by an *) and Dr. Tol’s is on the list (not under the highlights but in the general section). The list will never include any papers that support alarmist arguments as it is a resource for skeptics.

        Intellectually dishonest alarmists like yourself always try the same silly tactics because the list causes them massive cognitive dissonance. I mean how could someone like yourself have believed none of these papers existed?

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

  80. I am curious to know why climate feedback is assumed to be constant for all variations in mean global temperature anomaly. As feedback is mostly driven by clouds and water vapor, is there potential for say a strong positive feedback when the earth is in the range of 14.5C-15C (arbitrary temps) followed by a strong negative feedback at temperatures beyond this?
    I suppose this would mean the ratio between water vapor and cloud cover would have to vary with different global mean temperatures.
    A variable feedback, if possible, could potentially explain why the temperature rose between 1980 and 2000 before reaching this ‘shelf.’

    Does anyone know of any information regarding why feedback are considered to be constant?
    I think I’m missing something simple but a quick google search didn’t find anything

    • In response to Cam, it is not assumed that feedbacks respond uniformly to warming. For instance, though the Clausius-Clapeyron shows that the capacity of the atmospheric space to carry water vapor rises near-exponentially with temperature, not all datasets show column wearer vapor as having increased recently. Out simple model specifically allows for the influence of feedbacks to vary over time,

      • Firstly, thanks for the response and glad we agree that feedback shouldn’t be assumed constant.
        The reason I brought this up was because of the way in which I have seen a number of climate scientists use the following equation.

        Change in Temp(feedback)=Change in Temp(forcing)/(1-f)

        I have seen a number of people (such as Professor Andrew Dessler from Texas A&M here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60) use this equation by adding all the feedbacks and getting either a positive or negative net feedback. They then often go on to use the same equation with temperature and forcing reconstructions to solve for ‘f’ during past glaciations to ‘verify’ the original conclusion. (In the video Dessler finds the current feedback to be 0.55 and then the glaciations period feedback to be 0.58)

        I have seen both sides do this, the warmists tend to assume co2 as the main forcing and get about 0.6 and the skeptics tend to use orbital cycles as the main forcing to get neutral or negative feedback. They then claim that since it was positive then it must be positive now or vice versa. It makes sense to me that feedback during the last glaciations could be vastly different to current feedbacks due to different circulation patterns.

        Would you agree that this is an incorrect use of this equation? And if so do you have any idea why qualified climate scientists would use this method? Or am I wrong?
        Also could feedback changes be extreme due to changing circulations resulting in a non-linear event?

  81. It is a real delight to answer a serious scientific enquiry from Cam. That is really what these threads are for.

    If Cam will go to our paper at scibull.com (Vol. 60, no. 1, January 2015), he will see that the simple model he describes in his equation is the product of direct temperature change and the Bode system gain. Bates (2007) was the first to express discontent at the too-naive application of the Bode relation to climate sensitivity. For the reasons sketched out in our paper, we are not sure Bode applies to the climate at all (it is near certain that it does not apply unmodified in the presence of strongly net-positive feedbacks such as those assumed by IPCC). If Bode doesn’t apply, then climate sensitivity is one-third to one-fifth of current official central estimates.

    We are continuing our researches into what equation should replace the Bode relation to determine the system gain in the climate object.

    In practice, the equation is better modeled – as it is in our paper – by allowing for the feedback-sum to vary at will over time (we implement this and other such time-dependent parameters as array variables).

    As to the paleoclimate, our paper points out that perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the reconstructed temperature record of the past 810,000 years (Jouzel et al., 2007) is that global temperature has fluctuated by little more than 3 K (or 1% in absolute terms) compared with the long-term mean throughout that period. This formidable thermostasis does not suggest that strongly net-positive feedbacks mutually amplified by the Bode equation have been operating throughout that period, for much of which conditions on Earth were like enough to today’s to allow us to draw some conclusions, albeit cautiously.

    Of course it is true that feedbacks during glaciations will not be the same as those during interglacial periods such as the present. For one thing, the albedo feedback (negative) will be much greater during Ice Ages,.

    And, while it is theoretically possible for extreme feedback gain to occur in a dynamical system, the temperature stability of the past 810,000 years suggests that our minuscule perturbation of the atmospheric composition is most unlikely to trigger any such response. One should recall that the atmosphere where the global warming is supposed to begin is sandwiched between two vast heat-sinks: the oceans and outer space. These heat-sinks act to prevent runaway feedback. The ocean, for instance, appears to be warming at a rate consistent with a long-term warming rate of around 0.2-0.5 K/century, which is not exactly life-threatening. This very small warming rate is carefully concealed by taking the ocean temperature measurements and converting them to ocean heat content before they are published. I’m thinking of adding a new graph to the monthly temperature updates to show how very slowly the ocean is warming.

    For the derivation of the amended version of Cam’s equation that handles non-linear feedbacks, go to Roe et al., 2009. We had included an appendix in our paper to make it clear that our simple model could be readily adapted to handle non-linear feedbacks, but it disappeared during final editing by the journal.

    I hope that these considerations will be found helpful.

Comments are closed.