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:
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:
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:
On the combined RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature datasets, the trend is statistically indistinguishable from the surface trend:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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”:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
I am grateful to Lored Monckton for his reply, however it leaves several substantive points unanswered. I am sure we would all appreciate unambiguous, and preferably concise answers to these points of fact:
CO2 concentrations have indeed continued to rise at a gently exponential rate. Global warming, though, has occurred at half the best-estimate rate predicted by the IPCC on its business-as-usual scenario.
Mr Clark excuses the IPCC by saying it could not predict that controls on CFCs would be introduced or that the Soviet Union would collapse. However, CFCs – had they not been controlled – would have made virtually no difference to global temperature over the 25-year period. And the Soviet Union, with a relatively small population, was not one of the world’s great emitters. Its temporary collapse also made little difference. So business as usual is precisely what occurred, but business-as-usual warming is precisely what did not occur.
That is a qualitative response, however we can do better: as we are now some way into the period under discussion, 1990-2025, we have the actual numbers. Remember that the IPCC published 4 scenarios A-D in AR1, and they also gave forcing projections. Scenario A, described as ‘Business As Usual’, as there were few emissions controls in place in 1990, had CO2 forcing at 1.85W/m2 in 2000 and 2.88 in 2025, while scenarios B-D all had around 1.75 and 2.3 respectively. This information is in Table 2.7, page 57.
According to Lord Monkton’s recent paper, CO2 forcing had only risen to 1.82W/m2 (whatever the reason) by 2011, below the IPCC Scenario A figure for a decade earlier and far more closely in line with Scenarios B-C. Under these scenarios the IPCC report predicted rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade (Scenario D) . ((Policymakers summary page xii)
Actual outcome: 0.13C/decade.
In another thread, His Lordship agreed that Scenario A turned out to be an overestimate, not because the models were wrong but because the forcings were overestimated,
I had not recalled that IPCC had made its 1 k by 2025 prediction under Scenario A. However, Scenario A was its business-as-usual scenario, and it had incorrectly predicted a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred.
So he self-contradicts, business as usual is not what occurred, as his own paper makes clear. The IPCC cannot predict how emissions and hence GHG forcings will evolve, which is precisely why they run the models against a variety of scenarios. In my book, to describe a single scenario, which never transpired as ‘the’ IPCC prediction, and to ignore those which did, well if it is not misrepresentation, what is it?
I would also invite comments on the IPCC projections from AR3, which I linked. For 1990-2010 under the Scenario A2, which most closely matches reality, the IPCC model projections matched exactly the linear trend in HADCRUT4. Remarkable, no?
I would also be grateful for a quote or page reference where I can find the following:
– IPCC AR5 stating that 0.4K for the next 30 years years or 0.14K /decade is their ‘best estimate’.
– IPCC stating that they have abandoned climate modelling.
– An example, in the code or documentation for a climate model of it applying the Bode equation (rather than references to the analysis of the outputs as an emergent property of the model after the fact). I won’t bothering asking a third time.
I would also be grateful if he (or anybody) could confirm that the scenario used to produce the plot of model outputs vs observations in the Christy graph was RCP8.5. Perhaps his Lordship could also confirm that he described the underlying assumptions for this scenario as ‘implausible’ and ‘unrealistic’ in his recent Science Bulletin article. Also, perhaps he would explain why he posted this chart without mentioning that the CMIP recommend that ‘predictive RCP values should not be used before a date of 2006 and that historical values should be used for modeling of the recent past’? And I would also be interesting in learning the name of the dataset which is ‘highly questionable and defective’..
All perfectly cogent questions, I think, capable of a brief, factual response, which I respectfully await.
I should also respond to this.
He does not say where he gets his generally higher interval of supposed IPCC predictions from, so I cannot comment on them.
My assertion was, for near-term warming – ‘The IPCC give a range of warming rates, from 0.12°C to 0.42°C per decade.’ My source was Chapter 11 of IPCC AR5 WG1, final draft. Exact words:
Overall, in the absence of major volcanic eruptions—which would
cause significant but temporary cooling—and, assuming no significant
future long term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely (>66% probability)
that the GMST anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to
the reference period of 1986–2005 will be in the range 0.3°C to 0.7°C
(expert assessment, to one significant figure; medium confidence). This
range is consistent, to one significant figure, with the range obtained
by using CMIP5 5 to 95% model trends for 2012–2035. It is also consistent
with the CMIP5 5 to 95% range for all four RCP scenarios of
0.36°C to 0.79°C, using the 2006–2012 reference period, after the
upper and lower bounds are reduced by 10% to take into account the
evidence noted under point 5 that some models may be too sensitive
to anthropogenic forcing. The 0.3°C to 0.7°C range includes the likely
range of the ASK projections and initialized predictions for RCP4.5. It
corresponds to a rate of change of GMST between 2012 and 2035 in
the range 0.12°C to 0.42°C per decade
Page 1010.
I look forward to learning where IPCC AR5 gives 0.4C / 30 years as its ‘best estimate’.
Phil Clarke
Your problem seems to be that you are searching IPCC AR5 when the statements were in IPCC AR4 and not revoked in the AR5.
IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there
The emissions have been “within the range of the SRES scenarios” and, therefore, the IPCC statement I quote is perfectly consistent with the statements you have queried.
In plain words, the IPCC statement says global temperature was expected to rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 5 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum because they all involve “committed warming” which does not exist.
Richard
You know that all climate /environmental staffs everywhere supporting climate change cannot avoid this point expressed by Monckton and also by many others.
So what strategy will those climate / environmental staffs create to cover the period from now to COP Paris meeting this fall? I think they must say that even if there is no significant climate change problem, still governments must set a precedent to block humans from increasing their already too strong dominance of nature here on Earth.
That strategy can be defeated by open debate on human wealth.
John
@dbstealey.
I said:
“Do the Science Academies beat their members to prevent them from acknowledging your ‘work’?”
To which you replied:
“They do the modern equivalent: they refuse to provide membership communications, therefore they control the message. A simple majority of a tiny handful of self-serving board members makes statements without ever consulting their dues-paying members. There is never a vote of the membership allowed. Why do you think that is?”
To which I now reply: There are 38 National Science Academies in the World. ALL conclude AGW. How on Earth do you have a clue that they all override their membership in the way you describe? it sounds as if you’ve invented yet another conspiracy theory to deflect admission that all the World’s Science concludes AGW.
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.
warrenlb
I see you are still asserting the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’ which seems to be the only ‘arrow in your quiver’.
OK. I refer you to this peer reviewed publication by Richard Lindzen (i.e. the probably foremost living climatologist) which details the usurpation of Scientific Institutions by named green activists.
If you actually believe the nonsensical twaddle you have been peddling then the link I have provided is – according to your belief in ‘appeal to authority’ – crushing and complete refutation of your twaddle. The link is also a cogent and shocking read.
Richard
Interestingly you back up your ‘appeal to authority’ statement by making an appeal to authority.
Lindzen’s paper was a conference paper, not peer reviewed.
Phil.
Interestingly, you again demonstrate that you cannot read.
I have repeatedly refuted the ”appeal; to authority’ fallacy in this thread but the troll posting as warrenlb has ignored it all so I again pointed out that it is a logical fallacy then addressed him in his own terms saying
And the troll who posts as Phil. responds to that saying
Phil., even by your execrable standards, that response is asinine.
You assert that Lindzen’s paper was not peer reviewed. I linked to a site which provides the paper in a very readable format. This is a link to it in a peer reviewed journal.
Richard
warrenlb, out of those 38 National Science Academies how many scientists signed a position statement on climate change?
@warrenlb:
You are just repeating what you said before. If you want a different answer, ask them over at Hotwhopper. Your comment will probably double their traffic. And it is you who deflects as usual, Mr Projection.
Show us any of those “38” organizations that have provided for a fair, open, up and down vote of their membership on a question such as:
Are human emissions causing most global warming?
If you want to be fair about it, allow for a spirited debate on their websites, for a few months prior to the polling. Then we will see which way the wind blows. Members need to be exposed to all points of view to make an educated decision. But as of now, the membership is not allowed to have a say. There are comments here from long time Science subscribers who were never asked for their vote. Frankly, I question the veracity of any polling that is done internally on the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
But of course, they won’t allow the members to have a fair say in the matter. They like things just the way they are: with a simple majority of a small handful of people who happen to be directors, guiding the organization into the corner they want them in. They want to be able to [falsely] claim to speak for the entire membership.
I could easily do the same thing. I’ve been on boards, both as an officer, and as President. I know how easy it is for even one activist to put the board on record supporting something like this. It’s a piece of cake, and only the most credulous believe that it represents the thinking of the rank-and-file membership.
Prof Richard Lindzen, who has been on his share of boards, has written about the same corruption. Here is one example. See Sec. 2.
The whole thing has been heavily politicized. How could a worldwide group of organizations all have the same exact message, on something so fact-free? Only the most naive would believe it is strictly science.
You can argue ’till you’re blue in the face, but you will still appear to be just as foolish if you try to convince people that this “poll” is based on scientific evidence. It isn’t. It is based on politics. You only believe it because it fits your confirmation bias. But most folks here are smarter than that.
I have never been on boards.
The AMA (American Medical Association) board concluded in the mid 1950 that homosexuality was a disease!!
I am not kidding.
Quit bird dogging my posts. I’ve been an officer, on executive boards, and President of both local and a statewide organizations. I know how it works. If that bothers you, tough.
I think, warrenlb, that you have a very big problem.
“The fact that 38 National Science Academies in the World. ALL conclude AGW” is irrelevant and wrong.
This is not what they concluded. They concluded that on the basis of the data available at that time, it was obvious the “global temperature” from any data set available indicated some, very small (the amount depending on the different data sets) was an increase over the years. You don’t need to be a National Academy of Science to conclude this. It was obvious. So indeed GW, however small it was and still is.
But now in front of global warming (GW) you want to add the letter A, so we have AGW. This is a different beast. In order to add the letter A in front of GW you need to provide a correlation between CO2 (implied in your A letter) and temperature increase (GW).
Your big problem is you can’t do this now. You can’t provide us with any, and I mean any, evidence that the temperature anomalies of any data set you want to pick will show an increase in their values during the past 20 years (I will give you a break, during the past 16 years) that can be correlated with the obvious steady nice increase in CO2 (data set from Mauna Loa), the A part of GW. So there is simply no correlation between the A part and the GW part.
But maybe I am wrong, the Academies do have such a correlation. So just show it and we will agree with you.
You are indeed 100% wrong. ALL the academies conclude Anthropogenic Global Warming, NO exceptions. This includes the G8+5, the National Academy of Sciences (US) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society, and many others. In addition EVERY ONE of the worlds scientific professional societies maintain a published position concluding AGW. Plus NASA and NOAA. About 200 Organizations. NONE dispute the A in AGW.
A little hard for you to accept? Check it out by on their individual websites, or find a summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
In fact, the Russian academy, after a conference in 2004 in Moscow at which Dr Andrei Illarionov invited scientists from both sides of the debate, decided that global warming was a non-problem. However, shortly thereafter Tony Blair told Mr Putin that if he would only agree that global warming was a problem Blair would arrange for Russia to be given most-favored-nation status at the World Trade Organization. Putin told the academy to change its mind.
A group at the Japanese academy of sciences has said that belief in the exaggerated predictions of the IPCC is like believing in astrology.
The Royal Society originally issued a full-on stupid statement of religious belief in the supposed problem, but then issued a more temperate statement, and has now reverted to type with an extreme statement again.
The academies, however, are largely political these days. The closest thing to true science is done in the learned journals. And there the tiny fraction of all papers that addresses the single question that really matters in this debate, which is how much warming we are likely to see, are increasingly coming to conclusions similar to those in my paper at scibull.com: that there will be 1 K warming per CO2 doubling, or perhaps less.
warrenlb, out of all those science academies how many scientists signed a position statement on climate change?
I just did check your summary site you stated will show me a correlation between CO2 increases (A) and temperature anomalies increases (GW).
There is NO correlation presented between A and GW at this site. A big ZERO.
The only data presented is the increase in temperature anomalies (GW). There is NO data showing any increase in CO2 data presented at this site. Ignored completely.
There is NO plot of CO2 vs. Temperature anomalies. NONE a big ZERO.
Sorry but you need to make sure that what you provide will indeed show this relationship.
You are relying on “opinions”. I don’t care about opinions and this includes your opinion and my opinion.
Show me the data, not opinions and the data is a plot showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature anomalies, any set you want to use if you want to claim AGW.
What are you reading? I didn’t claim the site showed you any ‘correlations’ or any kind of proof that Man was Warming the Planet. I said the site summarized the state of Scientific Consensus on AGW. And I didn’t make any argument to prove AGW — I claimed all the World’s Institutions of Science concluded AGW.
Try reading the post one more time –maybe you’ll get it
warrenlb says:
ALL the academies conclude…&blah,blah, etc.
What is it about a logical FALLACY that you don’t get?? You’re a one-trick pony with that nonsense. If a million ‘expert’ people told you to go jump off a cliff, would you do it just because they say they’re experts?
As rd50 told you: you’re relying on opinions. Nothing more. You have no credible facts. You don’t have one single measurement of AGW. Not one! Talk about lemmings! You would follow your ‘experts’ off a cliff, if they told you to jump.
Scientific skeptics need more than that. We need verifiable, testable facts. We need scientific evidence. But since you have none, you keep hounding everyone with your appeal to authority fallacy. It’s fallacy, see? Do you understand what that means? Apparently not. Either that, or you’ve got nothin’ else.
And socks, quit bird dogging my comments. You’re just as worthless. Posting in all bold won’t get your questions answered, either.
Really, neither of you jamokes has anything in the way of facts or evidence. The onus is on you to produce verifiable facts and scientific evidence to support your runaway global warming “theory”. But so far, you’ve both failed to produce. Go away, and leave the discussion to the adults. All you’re doing is cluttering up the thread.
Warren LB should recall the words of al-Haytham, regarded in the East as the co-founder of the scientific method. He was a philosopher of science, mathematician and astronomer in 11th-century Iraq. He said this about “consensus” in science: “The seeker after truth does not put his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable or widespread: instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to scrutiny, inquiry, investigation, checking, checking and checking again. The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow.”
TH Huxley made a similar point, as have many other true scientists. There is a consensus on the political and academic Left, but that should not be confused with science.
So DBStealey continues to avoid dealing with the claim in my post that all Scientific Institutions conclude AGW, by insisting I prove AGW itself.
Since he does not provide falsifying evidence, we conclude he cannot, and there is none.
Your ridiculous appeal to authority logical fallacy does not even pass the most basic of challenges.
How many scientists from those scientific institutions signed a position statement on climate change?
warrenlb:
It’s your conjecture, so you have the onus. Don’t demand that skeptics start proving things for you. That’s how it works.
Dbstealey
…
One…..we’re not asking for much.
Can you name one scientific institution that rejects AGW?
..
You say: “Scientific skeptics need more than that. We need verifiable, testable facts.”
I believe real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Your claims, in contradiction of ALL the worlds institutions of science — the Academies, Scientific Professional Societies, major Universities, NASA, NOAA, and 99% of peer reviewed research papers — are extraordinary indeed.
You have never been able to provide evidence, extraordinary or not, for your vast alleged conspiracy of all the Scientific Institutions of the World.
That alone should disqualify you from using the title “skeptic.”
You keep spamming these ridiculous statements over and over.
How many scientists from those scientific institutions signed a position statement on climate change?
99% of peer-reviewed research papers say no such thing.
So…
Either every scientific academy and professional organisation in the world has been co-opted and railroaded by zealots, and amongst all of the craven memberships, who must comprise pretty much the entire global scientific enterprise, and who secretly know AGW to be false, none has spoken out.
OR
The most distinguished scientists in the world have examined the evidence and found it sufficiently compelling to issue statements endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC and urging action.
Occam’s Razor ….
And still I await enlightenment on where the IPCC gave 0.4C/ 30yrs as their best near-term estimate – as clearly represented above.
Not you too, Phil!
You need logical fallacies to support the fact that Planet Earth is making monkeys out of the alarmist cult? Didn’t you see the spanking warrenlb has been getting for that illogical desperation?
You know, we could do the same thing, if we wanted to. For example, here is an open letter to the UN from 100 scientists, debunking the IPCC’s claims. It’s from 2007 — today they could probably get 500 signatures. And if I sicced Poptech on you, you would be buried in similar refutations. Last I heard, he had thousands of scientists’ names debunking your alarmist nonsense.
When you have to resort to logical fallacies to make your case, that means you don’t have sufficent facts. That’s obvious. We don’t need to do that, because we have facts, data, and logic. We’re scientific skeptics of the MMGW conjecture, we have a mountain of evidence deconstructing the climate scare.
You faied to prove your point. Give it up, Phil, you’re only digging a deeper hole.
It is like all alarmists get the same nonsensical talking points they spam in repeated ignorance.
How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?
Your big problem is you can’t do this now. You can’t provide us with any, and I mean any, evidence that the temperature anomalies of any data set you want to pick will show an increase in their values during the past 20 years
20 years
NASA linar trend +0.13C/decade
HADCRUT4 linear trend +0.1C/decade
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:240/plot/gistemp/last:240/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:240/trend/plot/none
16 years
NASA +0.1C/decade
HADCRUT4 +0.07C/decade
Just for laughs
RSS (the most ‘pause-ey’ dataset)
Linear trend 1990-2005 0.24C /decade
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2005/trend
IPCC AR3 forecast (Scenario A2, the most realistic) : 0.175C /decade
Phil,
Just for laffs, let’s look at the trend from your last chart. Only let’s start at 2002 instead of 1990:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend
See? Global warming stopped. Many years ago. Sorry about your Belief.
To Mr. Clarke
The problem with Wood For the Trees site is that it will provide a straight line regardless.
Obviously it is very easy to use and many use it. I have nothing against it as a starting point.
Because you see a straight line going up or down does not mean anything until you provide a statistical analysis.
The simplest case is linear regression and you want to calculate what is called R squared, the coefficient of determination . This value is always between 0 and 1. 1 is perfect correlation. Unless you provide this value you have nothing. Just by looking at your plots your R squared values will be well below 0.5 and so you have nothing. Just one caveat about R squared values. If the value is very low, it may be that you have outliers. So in such cases look at the plot. In your case you don’t. So you can use your straight line to show an increase in temperature anomalies, but unfortunately your R squared is too low to conclude anything.
I know what you will tell me. You don’t have enough data points yet. Do you know how many data points you need to have an R squared value of 1.0. If there is a perfect correlation between two variables, just ask a statistician how many data points you need.
But the above is only half of your problem. The other half is coming.
Suppose that there is indeed a rise, however small, in temperature over the last 16 or 20 years period.
The other half of your problem is to demonstrate that it is due to CO2. No? Remember you are not done, you need AGW, not GW over the years.
So, try it. You have the CO2 data from Mauna Loa for the same years you plotted you temperature anomalies.
Before you try a linear regression between CO2 and your temperature anomalies, run a linear regression of the CO2 data vs. year just like you did for your temperature series. Take a look, calculate R squared. It will be very high, 0.9 something. But don’t stop here, take only the last 5 years of the CO2 data, run a linear regression again, calculate R square again. What is the number? Can you see now how many data points you need?
Now that you have done the above with the CO2 data, plot CO2 on the X axis and temperature anomalies on the Y axis. Now what do you get? What is the R squared value ? Once you get the results, you can now present them and we can see how convincing your argument is that CO2 increases caused temperature increase.
If you really want to see what is happening between CO2 and temperature anomalies, without arbitrarily selecting a starting year, start with the year when CO2 is available from Mauna Loa, 1959. Just do linear regression again. You should get a fairly good R squared value. But now look at the plot. You should see that despite the fact that temperature is increasing as CO2 is increasing, at one point, around 1990 or so, things begin to change, temperature is not increasing so rapidly. So now what you need to use is nonlinear regression, this will avoid selecting a particular year as a starting point for linear regression.
You have easily available all the data, if you are not very familiar with statistical analysis bring the data with you to a statistician for help. Nothing like doing the work yourself to see what is happening. After doing this I think you will read the IPCC reports with a grain of salt.
rd50,
Excellent basic primer!
Clear, concise, and to the point!
To Mac the Knife at 8:45
Thank you for reading and your kind comments.
rd50
There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 5 years by about 0.4°C.
Factually wrong, I fear. the NASA data shows a linear trend of > 0.1C/decade, and we are only 75% of the way through the period. It is statistically dubious to draw conclusions from periods of this duration.
Phil Clarke
I see you have tried to address my refutation of your twaddle without admitting it exists!
In my refutation I wrote
and you have attempted to nit-pick by replying
Say what!?
Are you really trying to claim I was “factually wrong” to say the year 2015 is “way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century” ” when you admit it is 75% of the period?
And all the various time series of global temperature show no discernible trend different from zero at 95% confidence this century.
And if it were true that the rise were a linear trend of > 0.1C/decade (it is not) then my statement would still be true. As I said in my response to your questions
You are wrong. Pretend you are a man and admit it.
Richard
Phil Clarke
At January 31, 2015 at 3:48 am you wrote
That is a falsehood which you have not retracted despite your making several subsequent posts in the following hour.
At January 31, 2015 at 3:32 am I here I replied to your queries and provided reference, link, quotation and explanation.
Perhaps you could take a break from trolling and address responses to your pointless questions instead?
Richard
“…varied by little more than 3 Cº or 1% either side of the long-run mean, rule out the absurdly extreme feedback….”
And for the last billion years, the unbroken chain of life on earth itself attests to the remarkable stability, even including the pH range of the oceans. Here are photos and article on cephlopoda from the Cambrian ~500Mybp to present. I have a specimen of orthoceras about a foot long (they grew to over a metre in length) in limestone from central Saskatchewan serving as garden accent (sorry no photo), but here is a link:
http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/gallery/image/35153-ordovician-cephalopod/
It is obvious to some, but apparently not all, that CO2 and temperature moving up and down together actually proves a lack of causation.
If you assume that CO2 is a forcing, then its units (per unit area) are e.g. Watts, aka Joules/sec. Temperature times the effective thermal capacitance (and appropriate scale factor) is energy, e.g. in Joules. To appropriately compare the two requires the time-integral of the CO2 forcing so you are comparing Joules from CO2 forcing to Joules from temperature change.
If you get into this, you might decide that perhaps there is some ‘break even’ level of CO2. The ‘break even’ level could always be adjusted so the beginning and ending temperatures are met. But if you then select a different time period and do the same procedure you will get a different ‘break even’ level. A third different time period would produce yet another ‘break even’ level. Clearly more than one ‘break even’ CO2 level is nonsensical.
The conclusion from all this must be that CO2 has no significant effect on average global temperature.
If anyone here wants to be informed most accurately as to what the evidence shows about the Climate’s behavior, how would he go about choosing which source(s) to go to?
1) Select the most qualified researchers and listen to what they had to say?
2 Select the researchers you know will tell you what you want to hear?
3) Select one without portfolio?
4) You don’t ask others?
5) Ignore the science?
Anyone want to give it a go?
@richardscourtney.
You say:
“You assert that Lindzen’s paper was not peer reviewed. I linked to a site which provides the paper in a very readable format. This is a link to it in a peer reviewed journal”
The Journal you linked to is ‘Euresis’. Euresis says in its header: “This journal stems from the wish to provide an opportunity to share with the largest number of people the experience of the conferences and workshops that are part of the activities of the Euresis Association”
Your claim was incorrect: Lindzen’s paper is still a conference paper, not accepted for peer-reviewed publication.
I just noticed warrenlb’s pathetic attempt to denigrate the world’s premier living climatologist, Prof Richard Lindzen. Here is Lindzen’s CV. I count about twenty dozen peer reviewed papers.
Start reading, warren. Take your time.
Warrenlb was not denigrating Lindzen. He was pointing out that the reference paper was not peer-reviewed.
warrenlb, the Euresis Journal reviews all papers before publication.
“Euresis Journal is edited and run by an Editorial Board including members of Euresis Scientific Committee. The Editorial Board, with the help of external experts, reviews all manuscripts.”
http://www.euresisjournal.org/default.asp?pagina=406
Conference papers can be peer-reviewed depending on the journal, so you cannot use that as an argument.
warrenlb
Lindzen is an authority above compare.
You – only YOU – claim that ‘appeal to authority’ has merit. So, according to you Lindzen’s paper is incontrovertible whether or not it is what you consider to be peer reviewed.
Richard
@warrenlb:
Even though this is just more of warrenlb’s ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy, and even though he certainly does not want to be “informed most accurately”, since his mind is made up and closed tight… just for the fun of it, I’ll go with #1:
1) Select the most qualified researchers and listen to what they had to say
Here is a list of more than 1,350 published scientists who factually dispute warrenlb’s climate alarmism nonsense.
Every one of them is named. So, if warrenlb can come up with an equal number of peer reviewed climate alarmists by name, we can have a discussion. But if he can’t, then he’s overstepped once again.
Finding that list took just a couple of minutes. So, warrenlb:
…on your mark
…get set…
GO!
☺ ☺ ☺
Dbstealey…..please tell us what proportion the 1350 is of the total number of published scientists in the field.
So you selected your sources based on their disputation of AGW. Sounds more like option #2.
So why do alarmists like yourself only select sources that support their position on AGW?
Dbstealey…
…
Start here
..
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107
Why would he start with a long refuted paper – Anderegg et al. (2010)?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
I see upthread that warrenlb would like to disqualify me. Sorry, warren, that just shows how impotent you are. warrenlb’s comment is strong evidence that he’s immune to reason. We don’t even need to look at his preposterous claim that global T is rising ‘3º per century’ to see that warrenlb lost the debate a long time ago. Or: “that as long as Man burns fossil fuels the Climate will continue to warm.” The planet itself — the only true Authority — is busy debunking warrenlb’s claims.
As usual, warrenlb has the Scientific
ProcessMethod turned upside down and backward. He keeps futilely attempting to paint skeptics into a corner, by demanding that we have to prove his negative. We don’t — because skeptics have nothing to prove. Warren still doesn’t understand that the onus is entirely on the alarmist cult, because it is their conjecture that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming [ie: warren’s ‘3º/century’ global warming], therefore they [not scientific skeptics] need to post evidence supporting their alarming conjecture, because:Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.
As to warrenlb’s conjecture claiming that human emitted CO2 is causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the falsified claim that there has been an alarming spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so.
Empirical [real world] evidence falsifies both of those claims, so warrenlb tries to turn the Scientific Method upside down. [Trenberth tried the same thing re: the Null Hypothesis. But he failed, too.]
Neither warrenlb nor any other climate alarmist has produced any credible measurements proving that AGW exists, therefore it remains merely a conjecture. [In dealing with people like warrenlb, I feel it’s necessary to say once again that I think AGW exists. But it is still a measurement-free conjecture.]
Those repeated failures are why warrenlb constantly falls back on his logical fallacies: because he’s got nothing else.
But warrenlb does provide easy entertainment, the same way as playing Whack-A-Mole. See, the mole never gives up, no matter how many times it’s whacked… ☺
“We don’t — because skeptics have nothing to prove.”
..
True.
…
But you also have proven nothing also.
Go away. You’re fixated on me, and you’re still bird-dogging my posts. I thought you had restrained yourself because you nearly stopped for a day or so after I pointed out your mental problem. But four posts in a row today — without any response from me — should tell you something.
I have no trouble answering every simpleton question you ask. Your problem is that you don’t answer questions, you only ask them. Incessantly. But when you’re provided with answers you always deflect, and nitpick, and bother the grown-ups here. You’re a site pest.
Next, no one here has any trouble refuting the “97%” nonsense in your link, either. But that stupidity has been asked, answered, and put to bed cold and wet. You just cannot accept the fact that it’s a completely bogus number, and it always will be. In fact, they’re already doing a bigtime climbdown, backing and filling all the way. It’s down to, what, 80-some percent now? That’s a climbdown, son. But it’s still a preposterous number, with no connection to reality.
And I have no problem wiping the floor with you; you’re just not smart enough. I’ve run circles around you from the get-go. But you are just not important enough any more. So when I ignore you, you should know that I’m laughing at you without responding. You’re just not that important.
Finally, I am currently playing a game of Whack-A-Mole with another clueless version of you. One game at a time, please. You’re the standby mole.
@warrenlb: see above. That link is just more 97% nonsense. Only complete fools buy into fanbricated numbers like that. <–[lookin' at you, wlb].
Next, you apparently believe you have enough intelligence to play word games. You don’t. Trying to put words in my mouth [“Still going with option #2?”] shows how truly pathetic you are. I note you never responded to the thousand-plus peer reviewed publications debunking your alarmist nonsense. Instead: simpleton word games. You lose.
If you want to be credible, post a verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total global warming. Do it in a way that’s verifiable, testable, and agreeable to all parties. Do it like Ferdinand Engelbeen would do it, with facts and logic. Hey, you would win the next Nobel Prize for that!
But you’ve got nothin’, except fact-free logical fallacies. As always.
1) ” pointed out your mental problem. ” ………you did? Are you a licensed psychiatrist? You do realize that unless you are, your diagnosis is meaningless.
..
2) “I have no trouble answering every simpleton question you ask” …. I asked you for a citation for your 20x assertion. But you seem to have trouble with that question.
..
3) “You’re a site pest. ” …another opinion you have. If you can’t take the heat, you should leave the game.
..
4) ” You just cannot accept the fact that it’s a completely bogus number,” …good….I’ll wait for you to refute the PNAS study.
..
5) Your “climbdown” link is bogus. You can’t compare a Pew survey with a PNAS survey…..nice try, but you lose
6) “you’re just not smart enough” ….anothe opinion you have. However, seems that you have an inate need to respond to my posts. Obviously I must be striking a very sensitive nerve…otherwise you wouldn’t respond
..
7) ” I’ve run circles around you from the get-go: ….Wow….yes you are running around in circles. Maybe you could post a chart showing all the circles you are going around in. Make sure the x-axis and y-axis are correctly labeled.
..
8) “So when I ignore you, you should know that I’m laughing at you without responding” so why are you responding now?
9) If you are playing “whack a mole” you’d better put on your glasses, because you haven’t scored a direct hit yet
Laughing at you, [snip. -mod]. Amuse me some more.
Thank you Mr Dbstealey
…
Whenever you start calling people names, it’s a sure sign you’ve got nothing
[snip. -mod]
@dbstealey.
An excerpt from David Socrates’ link:
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
Still going with option #2?
[snip. -mod]
Show me where I ever said #2. Show me, fool.
WHACK!
You implied, I inferred:
(My earlier post):
“So you selected your sources based on their disputation of AGW. Sounds more like option #2. ”
WHACK!
(BTW, did you ever take language lessons? If so, who was your teacher? Genghis Khan?)
Yo, Mole:
Once again, for the mentally impaired:
Show me where I ever said #2. Show me, fool.
WHACK!!
warrenlb says:
You implied, I inferred…
Oh, please.
Once more: show me where I ever mentioned your #2. I specifically replied to your #1.
warrenlb, you need to learn to do proper research, as that paper has been refuted by peer-review.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian?
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 39, September 2010)
– Saffron J. O’Neilla, Max Boykoff
Abstract: Assigning credibility or expertise is a fraught issue, particularly in a wicked phenomenon like climate change—as Anderegg et al. (1) discussed in a recent issue of PNAS. However, their analysis of expert credibility into two distinct “convinced” and “unconvinced” camps and the lack of nuance in defining the terms “climate deniers,” “skeptics,” and “contrarians” both oversimplify and increase polarization within the climate debate.
Expert credibility and truth
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 47, November 2010)
– Jarle Aarstad
Abstract: Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field “support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers” (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today. However, whereas expert credibility and prominence may dominate the opinion of what is true, it can never alter truth itself.
Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 52, December 2010)
– Lawrence Bodenstein
Abstract: The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other’s work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. The authors’ treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority (1). The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all. The authors’ framing of expertise was especially problematic. In a casting pregnant with self-fulfillment, the authors defined number of publications as expertise (italics). The italics were then dropped. Morphing the data of metrics into the conclusion of expertise (not italicized) was best supported by explicit argument in the Discussion section rather than by subtle wordplay. The same applied to prominence, although here the authors’ construct was more aligned with common usage, and of course, prominence does not connote knowledge and correctness in the same way as expertise.
@”Socrates”:
You know, I can’t count the times I’ve been labeled as the equivalent of a mass murderer. But that’s A-OK with you, isn’t it? Being equated to mass murderers is a lot more insulting than using a 1950’s clown, to show what I think of some comments.
Next, I wonder why you’re sticking up for someone else… unless you’re a sockpuppet. Or warren’s big brother. Are you either one? “Socrates” is not you real name, is it? When Prof Brown told you that you are using a fake screen name, you didn’t dispute him.
At least wlb is man enough to not whine complain about it like you do, and he posts under his real name. He gives it back in his own way [“Whack!”], but that doesn’t bother me. Why is that OK with you? You’re fine when I’m on the receiving end of anything.
I’ve asked you repeatedly to try and control your unusual fixation on me, but apparently you can’t. For just one day you were able to control yourself. But then you started serially birddogging my comments again. Why the personal fixation? Are you frustrated because I keep pointing out that you’ve got nothing? That most of your belief is based on evidence-free assertions? That your climate alarmism is a bunch of fact-free nonsense?
Stop hounding my comments, please. Ignore them, and I will ignore you. That’s fair, isn’t it? I offered that, and then stopped replying, hoping you would get the message. Didn’t work, though, bird dog. [Oops! My bad.] Only one day, and you were back birddogging again. Not cool.
I don’t think you were ever in the military, or you wouldn’t be such a delicate flower. The military knows how to handle delicate flowers. [Internet version]
Why don’t you go and cry to other commenters? There are plenty to pick from, and it seems like you’re pretty well disrespected here. You certainly haven’t made a single convert. Pick someone else to hound. I’m tired of it, because you ask incessant questions, then you parse the answers to death. No one else does that, at least not to your extreme.
You’re never satisfied. You’re always running interference, and you constantly question things I say as if I am lying about it, by demanding that I prove to you that I’ve been on executive boards, or demanding that I must produce citations for you, or that I prove that I was the twice-elcted President of a statewide organization consisting of tens of thousands of members, etc. I’m many things, but I’m not a liar. Why do you impugn my comments as if I am? It takes two to tango, you know. You’re not some innocent bystander.
You constantly nitpick any and all answers I give — often posted at your own demand. You endlessly demand answers from me — then when your questions are answered, you nitpick the answers to pieces, like you did right above here in your points 1 – 9. Nobody is wrong about everything, but you just cannot let any answers I give go without nitpicking and attacking. Again, I’m not bothered by that. But you do have a problem, son. I think it’s the fact that the planet is showing that you’re flat wrong. And it is. But you would look even more foolish attacking the planet. So you nitpick everything, in minute detail.
I understand that you have some problems. You really do. But you would be less unhappy if you just ignored my comments. They’re not meant for you, anyway. Never are. As I’ve said many times, I want to give newer readers here the other side of the argument, lest they believe your globaloney. You could counter with your own facts, but really, you’re very short in that area.
So I won’t reply to your comments. We’ll see how that goes. For you: just ignore my comments. You will be a lot less unhappy. But if you break the deal… all bets are off.
Your accusations against Socrates are hypocritical — you are the biggest hound on this forum. You swoop in on a commenter who isn’t talking with you, unsolicited, with name calling, parsing, and various demands of the kind you never meet yourself –such as refusing to falsify a proposition by a commenter, yet demanding it from others, refusing to verify your resume claims, yet insisting upon it from others, and yet have the gall to complain about being constantly challenged.
Hypocrisy Is not a basis for earning respect, nor is Metrology a foundation for expertise in Climate Science.
Dbstealey
…
“, and you constantly question things :
…
Yup….that is exactly what a scientist does.
You’re as much of a scientist as Pee-Wee Herman.
Which is, as always, my own personal opinion. Based os six decades of study.
Deal?
…
Sorry Mr Dbstealy, I’m going to keep your feet in the fire.
…
Just post another bogus “chart” and we’ll smell the roasting flesh.
…
OK, fine, jamoke. You won’t even try. Just don’t svivel like you usually do when I point out what a whining little baby you are.
But I’ll say one thing: you won’t even try to avoid birddogging my posts. You are incapable; there is something wrong with you. I don’t have to be a psychiatrist to see that.
So bring it on, baby. You can start with your non-existent measurements of AGW.
D Socrates posted the link. I prefer the simpler metric that ALL (100%) of the world’s institutions of science – national science academies, scientific professional associations, major universities, NASA and NOAA– conclude AGW. NO exceptions.
warrenlb, you have spammed this appeal to authority logical fallacy repeatedly but it is misleading.
How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?
warrenlb,
You have a learning disability. You simply cannot understand what a logical fallacy is. Your comment above is a logical fallacy. Einstein would have laughed at you and walked away. So would Feynman, Langmuir, and hundreds of other well known physicists.
Furthermore: since that is the sum total of your entire, evidence-free argument, you lose the debate. Simple as that.
No, you haven’t offered up any falsifying evidence to disprove my claim of the the unanimity of the world’s institutions of Science.
You know Warren, you would think that out of all of the world’s instutions dedicated to science, maybe………maybe one would not accept AGW??. Unfortunately for Mr Dbstealey, there isn’t one.
Thanks for the note, David. I’ve never met anyone quite as resistant to facts as DBStealey. I can recommend a fine book to him (except he won’t read it): “Don’t Even Think About It –Why Our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change” by George Marshall.
IMO, this entire debate is not so much about Science — (if it were, it would be less adversarial)– rather it’s about human psychology — in simplest terms, Confirmation Bias – an inability to accept challenges to one’s worldview.
I care about the issue because I worked, in part, on Climate Policy and technology in my career, and now teach Climate Science in retirement. Grandchildren are the other reason. They, more than me, will have to deal with the consequences of AGW, and 2nd, the anti science meme is truly dangerous –it’s the source of resistance to the teaching of good science in our secondary schools, of bad attitudes about Science and scientists, and more generally, a conspiratorial view of the world. Not healthy for our kids.
In any event, I admire your scientific approach –keep it up. In the long run, Science and Reason prevail.
Warren,
You have no credible facts. Only baseless assertions.
But nice try, thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.
Now you will disagree because you have made it adversarial with your content-free, evidence-free threadjacking. There’s no doubt any more that you get paid to be a site pest. Why else would you post constantly, throughout the workweek? You’re certainly not convincing anyone here. Paid by the word, are you? Your lack of any credible evidence is all I need to see what’s up.
Run along now to your boy, whoever it is, and tell ’em you’re getting a really painful spanking by people who have forgotten more than you’ve ever learned about this subject.
David, why are you both dodging the question?
How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?
Poptech,
Correctomundo. They gots nothin’. They have yet to post one single alarmist name contradicting the OISM statement, despite my asking repeatedly for the past week.
The simple, straightforward OISM statement debunks everything the alarmist crowd believes in.
If it weren’t for their psychological ‘projection’, and ad hominem attacks against Lord Monckton and others, and their non-stop, baseless assertions, their comments would look like this:
[ ” … ” ].
☺
dbstealey,
It is really sad they think their appeal to authority logical fallacy is some kind of trump argument. Lets forget the fact of the minuscule number of actual scientists those position statements from those organizations actually represent. It never ceases to amaze me how many alarmists parrot these long debunked talking points.
@Poptech. Phil Clarke gave the best answer to where you want to go:
SO:
Either every scientific academy and professional organisation in the world has been co-opted and railroaded by zealots, and amongst all of the craven memberships, who must comprise pretty much the entire global scientific enterprise, and who secretly know AGW to be false, none has spoken out.
OR
The most distinguished scientists in the world have examined the evidence and found it sufficiently compelling to issue statements endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC and urging action.
Occam’s Razor ….
waarenlb, you are dodging the question?
How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?
The presidents and council members of scientific organizations are not necessarily the most distinguished scientists in the world, if anything they are members who are more inclined to politics. No one is disputing a handful of members of these organizations support your alarmist position on AGW.
So Poptech, yours is the proposition that “Every scientific academy and professional organisation in the world has been co-opted and railroaded by zealots, and amongst all of the craven memberships, who must comprise pretty much the entire global scientific enterprise, and who secretly know AGW to be false, none has spoken out.”
Equivalently, what do you say are the constituents in Chemtrails to prove the Government isn’t conspiring to poison us?
Occam’s razor……
Or instead, perhaps you and MofB reject Occams razor and believe the US government is indeed poisoning us with Chemtrails??
warrenlb, it is not possible for me to proposition a strawman argument. Now please answer the question
How many scientists from those organizations have signed a position statement on climate change?
Warren LB has yet to learn that one cannot apply Occam’s Razor to a proposition – such as the argumentum ad verecundiam – that is fallacious. However simple the fallacious proposition, however much more simpler that proposition is than the truth, that proposition remains fallacious and Occam’s Razor is as inapplicable to the probability that that fallacious proposition is true as the Bode system-gain equation is to the determination of climate sensitivity.
@MofB. You misapply the principle. The proposition is quite simple -the World’s Institutions of Science are unanimous in their conclusion of AGW. Nothing more.
Their are two choices for you:
Phil Clarke’s First
Phil Clarke’s Second
Care to answer?
Warren LB is rebarbatively repetitive, and clings pathetically to the shop-worn fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam – the fallacy of appeal to the authority of supposed experts rather than examining whether whether the experts are saying what they are said to be saying and, if so, whether they have legitimate grounds for saying it.
The Russian Academy of Sciences, under Dr Andrei Illarionov, found that the supposed threat of manmade global warming had been exaggerated. See the reports of its 2004 Moscow conference at which both sides were heard. A group at the Japanese Academy of Sciences has described the naive belief in catastrophic manmade global warming as akin to believing in astrology. A group at the Chinese Academy of Sciences has dismissed the notion that the “missing heat” has gone into hiding in the ocean, leaving us with the conclusion that not as much warming as predicted has been occurring. The Royal Society, having issued a more than usually fatuous climate-Communist statement of true belief in the New Religion, was compelled to rewrite it in far more scientific and cautious terms after four of its Fellows protested.,
Many scientific academies have become mere taxpayer-funded lobby groups these days, and that their vested interest is in fattening their grant checks by bigging up the scare. But only a fool automatically believes those whose vested interest is in promoting alarm.
@warrenlb,
Is everything you assert wrong? Seems so.
If it weren’t for using logical fallacies, you wouldn’t have much of anything to say. Your fixation on the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy is amusing. That logical fallacy seems to be in everything you post.
Next, you falsely assert:
The most distinguished scientists in the world have examined the evidence and found it sufficiently compelling to issue statements endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC and urging action.
Wrong. I gave you the CV of the world’s premier climatologist, with at least 240 published, peer reviewed articles. No response as usual from the peanut gallery. That flatly contradicts and falsifies your claim above. Also, there are plenty of scientists who have spoken out, so you’re just blowing smoke as usual.
Finally, you clearly do not understand what scientific ‘evidence’ is.
Scientific evidence is not pal reviewed papers, or baseless assertions from people who don’t have a clue, or the output of computer climate models.
No, ‘evidence’ is verifiable, testable raw data [or adjusted numbers where the adjustments are publicly well documented, and where both the original raw data and the subsequent adjustments are shown every step of the way. Evidence is also verified, recorded, empirical observations.
You are equally clueless about Occam’s Razor, and you know nothing at all about the climate Null Hypothesis.
Really, what do you know? Obviously not very much.
I like data Like 2014 being the warmest year in the instrumental record. That’s real data
Mr Socrates should read a little more carefully. The two datasets that rushed out press releases claiming 2014 as the warmest year evaah have admitted that that is less than a 50% probability. The other three principal datasets do not show 2014 as the warmest year.
Even if the smallish probabilities on some datasets are right, 2014 was warmer by just 0.02 degrees. And the data show that the observed rate of warming in the quarter-century since 1990 is below the IPCC’s entire interval of warming predictions and less than half its central prediction.
The data show the models were wrong.