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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
401 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
george e. smith
January 28, 2015 2:23 pm

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

george e. smith
January 28, 2015 2:25 pm

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

January 28, 2015 2:27 pm

MofB: Where did you earn your University degree in Physics?

David Socrates
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 2:32 pm

I believe it was at http://www.degrees-r-us.com

They’re running a special on PhD’s ….$19.95 with a coupon.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  David Socrates
January 28, 2015 8:33 pm

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

Reply to  David Socrates
January 28, 2015 9:33 pm

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?

Reply to  David Socrates
January 28, 2015 9:37 pm

I’m relabeling it from Hoaxahagen to FRAUD o Haven

Stephen Richards
Reply to  David Socrates
January 29, 2015 1:52 am

That must be where you got yours, then?

Hugh
Reply to  David Socrates
January 29, 2015 5:04 am

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.

Reply to  David Socrates
January 29, 2015 10:43 am

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?

John Pickens
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 2:33 pm

warrenlb, please state the specific items in MoB’s article with which you disagree.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  John Pickens
January 28, 2015 4:02 pm

+1 That’s all that needs to be said to drive-by insinuations like warrenlb.

Reply to  John Pickens
January 28, 2015 5:11 pm

The warrenlb’s always attack the messenger when they can’t attack the message.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 2:37 pm

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.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 28, 2015 2:38 pm

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

David Socrates
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 28, 2015 2:42 pm

Why, thank you very much Mr. Robertson.

mikewaite
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 28, 2015 3:08 pm

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.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 28, 2015 4:33 pm

Thank you for your pleasant inquiry. Cornell University. And you’re welcome.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 28, 2015 4:51 pm

the league of ivy
sigh . . .

richardscourtney
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 28, 2015 10:32 pm

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

M Courtney
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 29, 2015 1:26 am

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.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 29, 2015 1:41 am

M Courtney,
You forgot to add: “/sarc”.

RWturner
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 29, 2015 9:26 am

Great Warren! We’d all love to read your dissertation or thesis.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 29, 2015 10:31 am

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.

garymount
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 3:29 pm

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.

Reply to  garymount
January 28, 2015 4:40 pm

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.

garymount
Reply to  garymount
January 28, 2015 4:53 pm

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.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  garymount
January 28, 2015 6:14 pm

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!

Reply to  garymount
January 28, 2015 7:32 pm

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?

commieBob
Reply to  garymount
January 29, 2015 5:58 am

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. 😉

Eamon Butler
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 5:14 pm

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.

MichaelS
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 5:29 pm

When all else fails, attack the man.

Reply to  MichaelS
January 28, 2015 8:19 pm

Michael S,
If you noticed, that is all these people have. If it were not for their ad hominem logical fallacies they wouldn’t have anything to say.

David Socrates
Reply to  MichaelS
January 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Dbstealey nailed it
..
For example
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/25/an-engineers-ice-core-thought-experiment/#comment-1846618
“Bart, I knew it, just knew it. Have I got the jamoke pegged, or what? ”

Name calling is considered “ad-hominem”

Reply to  David Socrates
January 30, 2015 8:20 am

Ad hominem is 2 words, not one. If you are going to use the term, learn to use it correctly.

Reply to  MichaelS
January 29, 2015 1:13 am

Since the jamoke doesn’t understand the term, it can hardly be called offensive.
Still, the label fits.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 5:55 pm

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

Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 8:14 pm

@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!

Paul
Reply to  dbstealey
January 29, 2015 4:54 am

“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.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 29, 2015 12:31 pm

>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.

Walt D.
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 8:39 pm

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?

Joey
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 9:58 pm

Why don’t you attack the arguments? Maybe because you can’t?

Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 10:41 am

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?

Patrick
Reply to  warrenlb
February 2, 2015 2:04 am

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

GeeJam
January 28, 2015 2:35 pm

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.

Otteryd
Reply to  GeeJam
January 28, 2015 3:01 pm

Obviously caused by El nino, or CAGW, or fracking, or out-of-control wind turbines. Settled.

Reply to  Otteryd
January 28, 2015 5:00 pm

No fracking allowed yet in the UK. Excuse fail!
Fracking was the Arkansas/ West Virginia excuse. For the amusing details, read that example in The Arts of Truth. Might be relevant to the ongoing realtime UK debate.

PeterK
Reply to  GeeJam
January 28, 2015 3:12 pm

You’re just feeling minor earth tremors due to evil fracking.

garymount
Reply to  GeeJam
January 28, 2015 3:31 pm

It’s probably a result of geothermal energy plants.

rooter
January 28, 2015 2:50 pm

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?

John M
Reply to  rooter
January 28, 2015 3:04 pm

Are you of the opinion that 100% of the 0.8 deg C is from CO2?

David Socrates
Reply to  John M
January 28, 2015 3:28 pm

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
Reply to  John M
January 28, 2015 3:34 pm

So what caused the LIA? And do you believe that 100% of the warming is due to CO2?

garymount
Reply to  John M
January 28, 2015 3:35 pm

The warming in the first half of the 20th century was not possibly from CO2, so you are obviously wrong Mr. Socrates.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  John M
January 28, 2015 4:34 pm

@DavidSocrates
Well, if you are right (and I doubt that), we should be really thankful for all that “evil” anthropogenic CO2. Otherwise, we would be in the midst of a very uncomfortable climate with a lot of starving and extreme weather, because there is more extreme weather in cooler periods! See here for example:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130926/srep02770/full/srep02770.html

David Socrates
Reply to  John M
January 28, 2015 4:39 pm

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) “.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  John M
January 28, 2015 6:13 pm

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

John M
Reply to  John M
January 28, 2015 6:35 pm

“…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?

Reply to  John M
January 28, 2015 8:26 pm

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.

rooter
Reply to  John M
January 29, 2015 1:05 am

The author of this post implies 100% of 0.8 degrees is from CO2. Implies an TCR of 7 (!) degrees.

Reply to  rooter
January 28, 2015 4:42 pm

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.

rooter
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 1:08 am

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?

John M
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 4:51 am

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.comment image
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.

John M
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 5:00 am

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. 🙂

John M
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 6:27 am

Rooter,
That graph is from a recent publication by one Michael Mann.
And my question still is relevant.

rooter
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 7:52 am

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?

John M
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 8:20 am

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.

rooter
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 1:43 pm

Does John M not like the correlation between CO2 and temperature?

John M
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 4:26 pm

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.

rooter
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 30, 2015 1:29 am

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?

John M
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 30, 2015 6:29 am

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.

ferdberple
Reply to  rooter
January 28, 2015 6:44 pm

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  ferdberple
January 29, 2015 11:05 am

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

richardscourtney
Reply to  rooter
January 28, 2015 10:39 pm

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

Reply to  richardscourtney
January 28, 2015 11:42 pm

Mr Courtney is right, as ever. See also Spencer & Braswell (2010′ 2011).

rooter
Reply to  richardscourtney
January 29, 2015 1:12 am

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

Reply to  richardscourtney
January 29, 2015 8:58 pm

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.

Peter Plail
Reply to  rooter
January 29, 2015 12:17 am

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.

rooter
Reply to  Peter Plail
January 29, 2015 1:16 am

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.

Reply to  Peter Plail
January 29, 2015 8:44 pm

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).

Brandon Gates
Reply to  rooter
January 29, 2015 1:15 am

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:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg
Is it not your intent for us to read that plot and infer something about the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature change?

rooter
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 29, 2015 1:20 am

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.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 29, 2015 4:05 am

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?

rooter
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 29, 2015 6:14 am

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

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 29, 2015 6:32 am

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?

richardscourtney
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 29, 2015 11:25 am

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

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 29, 2015 1:24 pm

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.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 29, 2015 3:07 pm

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.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 29, 2015 7:59 pm

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.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 29, 2015 8:51 pm

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).

RHS
January 28, 2015 2:52 pm

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.

Mr. Cam
January 28, 2015 2:53 pm

Once again facts trump propaganda. Thank you Lord Monckton

Victoria
January 28, 2015 2:58 pm

Would .4 K or .7 K of potential global warming be much? How would that really affect temperatures?

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Victoria
January 28, 2015 6:29 pm

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

Victoria
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
January 29, 2015 11:28 am

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

asybot
Reply to  Victoria
January 29, 2015 9:08 pm

@ 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?

January 28, 2015 2:59 pm

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.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  markstoval
January 28, 2015 4:20 pm

Encore! Encore!!!

Reply to  markstoval
January 29, 2015 1:00 pm

…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.

January 28, 2015 3:25 pm

Thank you, Lord Monckton.

Newsel
January 28, 2015 3:36 pm

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.

January 28, 2015 3:42 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 28, 2015 4:28 pm

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….

Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 28, 2015 11:52 pm

And 10+10 is 100, and 2+2 is 11, or 10, and so on.

asybot
Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 29, 2015 9:15 pm

@MoB. We’ll see with Common(unistic) Core”

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 28, 2015 4:28 pm

I may not always agree with you, but I do love reading your essays.

Reply to  philjourdan
January 28, 2015 11:54 pm

Very kind. Agreement in science should only be reached when the truth is demonstrated. Till then, there is no dishonour in informed disagreement.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 28, 2015 4:39 pm

Yes, a B.A. in Classics and a degree in Journalism Studies from Cardiff, I believe.
In which peer reviewed Science Journal did you publish?

davidmhoffer
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 4:48 pm

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?

Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 4:49 pm

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.

Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 5:12 pm

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’.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 5:22 pm

You’re really not keeping up, are you?

Ernest Bush
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 7:18 pm

@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.

Alx
Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 4:45 am

Warrenlb, you’re moving from annoying to pathetic. My sympathies to you.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 28, 2015 4:40 pm

we disagree about many things.
However, we agree on this:
“If one is interested, one can learn.”

Reply to  Steven Mosher
January 28, 2015 5:15 pm

Mosher, we disagree on stuff. But not this. +10.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 28, 2015 4:52 pm

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

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 28, 2015 5:16 pm

he may in reality be YOUR problem
When he’s done as POTUS I predict he will show up at the UN. Then he’ll be everyone’s problem 😉

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 28, 2015 5:25 pm

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.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 28, 2015 8:36 pm

Mike says:
…that makes him English,…
So we’ve now come full circle, from King to King.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 30, 2015 4:51 am

That’s hitting below the belt Mike the Morlock. 😉

BFL
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 28, 2015 9:16 pm

“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

Walt D.
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 3:53 am

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.

Reply to  Walt D.
January 29, 2015 9:04 pm

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.

James at 48
January 28, 2015 4:00 pm

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.

RockyRoad
Reply to  James at 48
January 28, 2015 4:39 pm

warrenlb: Where did you earn your University degree as a Private Investigator?

Mariwarcwm
Reply to  James at 48
January 29, 2015 12:43 am

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.

Reply to  James at 48
January 29, 2015 5:20 am

+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.

Jimmy Finley
January 28, 2015 4:05 pm

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.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Jimmy Finley
January 28, 2015 4:41 pm

…actually, less than that (I can use bullshit to fertilize my pasture). What they pitch is far more destructive.

Reply to  Jimmy Finley
January 28, 2015 4:55 pm

I was delighted to be able to track down a picture of the mountain showing the Great Shelf in sunlight. A good place to park the dead global warming theory.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 28, 2015 7:23 pm

Especially so, since India is helping the green movement develop a severe case of stomach acid.

Mac the Knife
January 28, 2015 4:15 pm

…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.

January 28, 2015 4:28 pm

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.

January 28, 2015 4:35 pm

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

January 28, 2015 4:39 pm

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.

george e. smith
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 28, 2015 4:57 pm

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

Reply to  george e. smith
January 29, 2015 12:03 am

George E Smith is right to question my suggestion that system gain is negative. I had meant to say it was sub-unity. Very well spotted.

Reply to  george e. smith
January 29, 2015 12:14 am

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.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
January 29, 2015 3:59 pm

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

Editor
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 28, 2015 5:16 pm

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.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 28, 2015 5:42 pm

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.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 29, 2015 6:11 am

” I predict Paris will be worse than Copenhagen, despite OBummers best efforts. ”
One can only hope.

Bill Illis
January 28, 2015 4:39 pm

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.
http://s15.postimg.org/ki1z8a43v/Global_Warming_and_IPCC_Feedbacks.png
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.
http://s1.postimg.org/gda7aglrz/Global_Warming_and_Empirical_Feedbacks.png

Hugh
Reply to  Bill Illis
January 29, 2015 5:48 am

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.

January 28, 2015 4:53 pm

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.

RACookPE1978
Editor
January 28, 2015 4:55 pm

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?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 29, 2015 12:08 am

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.

Editor
January 28, 2015 5:19 pm

“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?

Latitude
January 28, 2015 5:20 pm

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

Bart
January 28, 2015 5:34 pm

GISS is skewing the last warming round higher. In actual fact, the warming circa 1910-1940 is essentially indistinguishable from the warming circa 1970-2000.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/detrend:0.75

Reply to  Bart
January 28, 2015 6:05 pm

Easily provable several ways. See essay When Data Isnt. Question is how much? Not so easy.

Ian Wilson
January 28, 2015 6:05 pm

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.

Reply to  Ian Wilson
January 29, 2015 3:12 pm

Thanks to Mr Wilson for this correction. I should be most grateful for a copy of the Wilson & Tisdale paper on the nino/nina ratio.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
January 28, 2015 6:11 pm

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

joelobryan
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
January 28, 2015 7:11 pm

Thank you Dr. Reddy. It is clear the IPCC and consensus Climate Scientists do not want to hear that.

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
January 29, 2015 12:11 am

Dr Reddy’s comment is most helpful. The interesting question is what causes the 60-year quasi-periodicity in the great ocean oscillations.

Ian Wilson
January 28, 2015 6:17 pm

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:
http://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]

Richard M
January 28, 2015 6:41 pm

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.

John F. Hultquist
January 28, 2015 6:47 pm

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

joelobryan
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 28, 2015 7:53 pm

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?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  joelobryan
January 28, 2015 10:45 pm

Just to clarify for someone new to this, the issue is debatable. The US agencies use a measure (NINO3.4) but others think there are better metrics.
The Multivariate ENSO index (MEI) is one and that did peak in April/May.
Japan’s weather folks have their own idea and say El Niño emerged between June and August, continuing into November.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/us-elnino-japan-idUSKBN0JO0I620141210

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  joelobryan
January 28, 2015 10:48 pm

I do not mean to imply this is new to Joel. It may be to others.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 29, 2015 12:37 pm

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.

joelobryan
January 28, 2015 7:50 pm

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?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  joelobryan
January 28, 2015 11:19 pm

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

January 28, 2015 8:07 pm

@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.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  warrenlb
January 28, 2015 11:09 pm

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.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 29, 2015 10:41 am

@Hultquist. Oh, I’m quite conversant with Climate Science — but not the non-peer reviewed stuff you seem to prefer. Physics or Engineering training –PhD or otherwise –doesn’t qualify me, or anyone, to dismiss peer-reviewed published scientific research, or to dismiss researchers as incompetent, in a conspiracy, or stupid — criticisms seen frequently on this forum. Apparently that doesn’t bother Monckton, whose assertions that climate sensitivity are much lower than the IPCC’s estimate from 10,000 peer-reviewed papers, are found to be fraught with errors by real scientists. Perhaps that explains why he’s not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Going to an amateur for an understanding of Science is equivalent to asking a barber to perform heart surgery. The barber may be utterly convinced he knows what he’s doing, and you may be as well — until it’s too late.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 31, 2015 3:58 pm

WTF are you talking about? The IPCC did not determine climate sensitivity from 10,000 peer-reviewed papers. There are many peer-reviewed papers that support low climate sensitivity,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Sensitivity
warrenlb, why are you lying that Monckton has not published in a peer-reviewed journal?
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
(Science & Education, August 2013)
– David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton

Political Science: Drawbacks of apriorism in intergovernmental climatology
(Energy & Environment, Volume 25, Number 6-7, pp. 1177-1204, August 2014)
Christopher Monckton

Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model
(Science Bulletin, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp. 122-135, January 2015)
Christopher Monckton, Willie W. H. Soon, David R. Legates, William M. Briggs

Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 12:21 am

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.

Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 12:35 am

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.

M Courtney
Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 2:01 am

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.

Steve (Paris)
Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 2:57 am

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?

Reply to  Steve (Paris)
January 29, 2015 1:28 pm

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.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Steve (Paris)
January 29, 2015 4:55 pm

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

Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 6:23 am

@ 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.

Reply to  rishrac
January 29, 2015 1:22 pm

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.

Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 3:03 pm

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.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  rishrac
January 29, 2015 4:49 pm

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

Alan Robertson
Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 12:34 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.

Reply to  warrenlb
January 30, 2015 8:28 am

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.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  warrenlb
January 30, 2015 1:23 pm

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.

richardscourtney
January 28, 2015 10:59 pm

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

Mr Green Genes
Reply to  richardscourtney
January 29, 2015 12:53 am

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.

george e. smith
Reply to  richardscourtney
January 30, 2015 9:08 am

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 ??”

Don (a high school diplomate and inventor of dozens of useful patented devices)
Reply to  george e. smith
January 31, 2015 1:25 am

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.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
February 1, 2015 10:02 pm

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]

johnbuk
January 28, 2015 10:59 pm

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?

Reply to  johnbuk
January 29, 2015 1:01 pm

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.

asybot
Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 9:38 pm

@ 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.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  johnbuk
January 29, 2015 4:51 pm

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

old construction worker
January 28, 2015 11:56 pm

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

Non Nomen
January 29, 2015 12:14 am

>>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.

Matt
January 29, 2015 2:25 am

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? 🙂

Non Nomen
Reply to  Matt
January 29, 2015 4:22 am

There is the link, have a look:
Non Nomen January 29, 2015 at 12:14 am

Ivor Ward
January 29, 2015 2:56 am

The climate models are not wrong. Reality is wrong.

Alx
Reply to  Ivor Ward
January 29, 2015 5:09 am

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.

January 29, 2015 4:35 am

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.

Reply to  Kristian
January 29, 2015 4:39 am

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

rogerknights
January 29, 2015 6:16 am

“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.

January 29, 2015 8:15 am

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.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 31, 2015 5:37 am

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Danny G. Sage
January 31, 2015 6:06 am

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

Neil Jordan
January 29, 2015 8:56 am

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.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Neil Jordan
January 29, 2015 9:55 am

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.

Phil Clarke
January 29, 2015 10:28 am

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.

Bart
Reply to  Phil Clarke
January 29, 2015 12:16 pm

Yes, that will quite do. You will sprain your wrists waving your hands with such vigor.

Reply to  Bart
January 29, 2015 12:55 pm

How about a substantive reply, Bart?

Toneb
Reply to  Bart
January 29, 2015 1:36 pm

What? … Mr Clarke’s post is the very antithesis of hand-waving.
Would you care to refute each of the many scientific points he makes?

Reply to  Phil Clarke
January 29, 2015 3:49 pm

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.

Travis Casey
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 4:20 pm

Brilliantly refuted, M.O.B.

mark
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 31, 2015 9:03 am

×drops microphone on floor×

Toneb
January 29, 2015 2:06 pm

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.

Reply to  Toneb
January 29, 2015 3:54 pm

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.

Warrenlb
January 29, 2015 2:39 pm

@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.

Reply to  Warrenlb
January 29, 2015 4:04 pm

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.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 29, 2015 6:30 pm

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.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 31, 2015 6:15 am

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.”

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 31, 2015 6:31 am

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 31, 2015 6:38 am

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

rd50
Reply to  Warrenlb
January 29, 2015 4:12 pm

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.

Reply to  rd50
January 29, 2015 6:32 pm

The actual analysis shows that global warming will have a number of positive results outweighing the negative.

Reply to  rd50
January 29, 2015 9:20 pm

Rishrac’s excellent point is not made often enough.

Reply to  rd50
January 31, 2015 6:45 am

Even RSS, who works with Santer et al, is having trouble explaning the “pause” http://www.remss.com/research/climate

Reply to  Warrenlb
January 29, 2015 4:59 pm

@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.

asybot
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
January 29, 2015 10:13 pm

@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).

richardscourtney
Reply to  Warrenlb
January 31, 2015 5:00 am

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

Travis Casey
January 29, 2015 2:56 pm

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?

Tonyb
Reply to  Travis Casey
January 29, 2015 3:07 pm

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.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Tonyb
January 29, 2015 5:18 pm

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.

Geoffrey
Reply to  Tonyb
January 29, 2015 6:17 pm

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.

Toneb
Reply to  Tonyb
January 30, 2015 8:09 am

“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.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Tonyb
January 30, 2015 11:23 am

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.

Reply to  Travis Casey
January 29, 2015 9:28 pm

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.

4TimesAYear
January 29, 2015 3:37 pm

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.

January 29, 2015 5:15 pm

We’ve seen no substantive scientific response By MofB to Phil Clarke’s point by point expose. Will we?

Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 5:19 pm

As I stated before, your deficiency is in logic. You don’t make any sense on the subject being discussed.

rd50
Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 5:46 pm

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?

Reply to  rd50
January 29, 2015 6:59 pm

Certainly. Monckton has been caught . Again.

Reply to  rd50
January 29, 2015 11:16 pm

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.

Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 9:36 pm

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.

Mac the Knife
January 29, 2015 5:26 pm

Everyone: Do Not Feed The Troll.
Ignore, like the occasional fly at an engineering symposium.

Reply to  Mac the Knife
January 29, 2015 5:53 pm

How can you ignore the troll? It’s like ignoring a mosquito. Even the President of the United States agrees with this troll.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
January 29, 2015 8:48 pm

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!

January 29, 2015 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. 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.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
January 29, 2015 6:58 pm

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.

Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 9:56 pm

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  warrenlb
January 29, 2015 10:59 pm

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

george e. smith
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
January 30, 2015 8:08 am

“””””…..
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 )

Reply to  george e. smith
January 31, 2015 4:34 am

george e. – I suggest that you read my post more carefully . . . and completely.

george e. smith
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
February 1, 2015 1:00 pm

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

Reply to  george e. smith
February 1, 2015 5:10 pm

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.

January 29, 2015 7:45 pm

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.

rd50
Reply to  dbstealey
January 29, 2015 11:53 pm

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.

Reply to  rd50
January 30, 2015 3:13 am

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.

rooter
Reply to  rd50
January 30, 2015 4:25 am

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

rd50
Reply to  rd50
January 30, 2015 7:29 am

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.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 30, 2015 8:43 am

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’?

Reply to  warrenlb
January 30, 2015 9:47 am

“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.

Reply to  warrenlb
January 30, 2015 10:00 am

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.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  warrenlb
January 30, 2015 3:46 pm

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.

Randy
January 29, 2015 8:43 pm

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.

Dr. Strangelove
January 30, 2015 12:52 am

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.

Phil Clarke
January 30, 2015 1:42 am

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