Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Denialism is defined as “the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.” In climate the problem is those who label others deniers are the real deniers. They don’t even acknowledge there is a debate to deny.
Even the Pope denied the deniers by excluding them from his climate conclave while he ordered priests to forgive those who had abortions. Apparently there are limits to Papal forgiveness. Sadly he doesn’t know enough to know who the real deniers are, which tends to dent infallibility. There is a long list including the President of the US and his cabinet, most world leaders, a majority of the world’s politicians, all environmental groups and their followers, and most with a left political leaning. Sadly, most have no understanding of the science, but typically they have very definitive positions; it is emotional and politically fuelled ignorance.
Recently Lord Monckton provided details of the continuing period of 18 years and 8 months with no global warming (Figure 1). Ross McKitrick puts the hiatus at 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere. Regardless, it contradicts the basic assumption of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis because CO2 levels continued to rise. Proponents only acknowledged these events by calling it climate change instead of global warming.
They then came up with 52 and counting excuses for the facts not fitting the hypothesis. These are similar attempts to explain away or deny conflicting evidence. AGW proponents even set up web sites to obfuscate, deflect and deny, The first was Realclimate set up at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). As Gavin Schmidt explained in a December 2004 email,
Colleagues, No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see agenda-driven “commentary” on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task. In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’ website: RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days:
Scepticalscience is another web page designed to contradict or deny evidence that shows the AGW hypothesis is wrong. Joanne Nova and Lubos Motl completed two incisive decimations of the validity of John Cook and his web page. A woman who spoke with Gavin Schmidt after a presentation at the University of Victoria wrote to me on July 26, 2015, with questions. She noted that,
“He (Schmidt) also directed me to the website www.scepticalscience.com to do my own research.”
This recommendation is not surprising because John Cook credits Schmidt for coming up with the idea for the web page.
An anonymous adage says,
“When you point your finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.”
Finger pointing rarely includes facts, especially in the climate debate. The first finger was pointed at global warming skeptics who tried to practice real science by questioning the AGW hypothesis. The slur was averted when the facts no longer fit the AGW story global warming story. Now it became Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) and the second finger pointed at climate change deniers. This charge was rejected because enough people knew that climate change was natural. Besides, the opposite is true; opponents to AGCC are telling the public about the extent and speed of natural climate change.
As Paris nears, it’s evident no agreement is possible so rhetoric, and alarmism abound. Finger pointing has a new form, being a denier is now a disease, like leprosy. George Monbiot identified denial as a disease.
“There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”
Pope Francis limited his welcome to his recent climate conclave by not inviting disease carriers. Hardly an action Jesus would approve. In doing so, Francis created two groups. Those who knowingly deny the failure of the hypothesis and those who don’t know or want to know the hypothesis failed. Either way they are the real deniers.
Monbiot ignored all the facts I provided when he pointed the finger at me. Ignoring facts makes it easy to claim the deniers are at fault. The facts are the reason the sphere is expanding. Here are just a few, but sufficient to expose the deniers.
· As Monckton demonstrates, the global average temperature has not risen for 19 years.
· Over the same period CO2 levels continued to rise.
· Every IPCC temperature projection was wrong.
· Temperature increases before CO2 in every single record for any period. The only place in the world where CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models.
· CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses and the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that total.
· Predictions of more severe weather are proving incorrect.
· The continued failure of medium forecasts, such as the most recent debacle in the UK, further the already high public skepticism about weather forecasts.
The Ulitmate Sign Of Denial
The worst level of denying is least seen by the public. It is the adjustment of data and records to ensure the deception continues. We knew about the adjustment of the New Zealand record by NIWA (Figure 2) and the claims against the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) by Jennifer Marohasy and others (Figure 3).
Figure 2
As Chris Booker points out, few exposed the extent of the manipulation, especially in the US, better than Stephen Goddard through his web site Real Science. In an article titled “Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor” Goddard asks, “Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS.” Figure 4 illustrates what Goddard describes as
“…Hansen’s remarkable changes to the pre-1975 temperature data. He simply removed that pesky warm period from 1890 to 1940.”
The most recent and egregious adjustments to data are those of Thomas Karl at the United States Historical Climate Network (USHCN) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Karl has a long history of adjusting records as Steve McIntyre identified in 2007. In an open letter to Karl, Bob Tisdale questioned the method and the objective of the most recent adjustments. The phrase “cherry-picking” is all too familiar to those following the history of the real deniers. However, Judith Curry found it appropriate to describe what Karl did.
This new paper is especially interesting in context of the Karl et al paper, that ‘disappears’ the hiatus. I suspect that the main take home message for the public (those paying attention, anyways) is that the data is really uncertain and there is plenty of opportunity for scientists to ‘cherry pick’ methods to get desired results.
Apparently in a determination to say 2014 and 2015 are the warmest years on record and prove the hiatus Lord Monckton identifies didn’t exist he created a more than questionable method. These issues are crucial to supporting and continuation of the denial as a prelude to the Paris Climate Conference (COP 21). It is as important a deception to persuade politicians as the leaked emails were an exposure to stop COP 15 in Copenhagen.
The good news for Karl is he now has support for what he did from Michael Mann.
“Tom Karl and colleagues have done solid work here, but they’ve mostly just confirmed what we already knew,” said Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. “There is no true ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in warming.”
Mann’s credibility with scientists is clearly delineated in Mark Steyn’s latest book.
Who Has The Political Prejudice To Deny?
Logic says it’s those who want to stifle debate, to silence individuals and groups, who are the real deniers. President Obama in his State of the Union political speech said,
“So unfortunately, inside of Washington we’ve still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they’re wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate,” “Climate change is a fact.”
Yes, Mr. President it is a fact but in stating it you cherry-pick the more accurate and complete statement that “Climate change is a fact, but anthropogenic climate change is not.” It appears the President is the denier in chief. Further proof of who the real deniers are is found in the anonymous observation that,
If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong, or he stops being honest.
In the case of the real climate deniers, they ignore the demonstrable facts and compound their denial by changing the record.
The only deniers in this game are the ones that deny the uncertainty.
Spelling error in the first paragraph,,,,you say papal forgiveness,,, did you mean paypal forgiveness?
Bazinga!!!! “Paypal forgiveness” ROTFLMAO. We have a winner!
I always get a kick out of the New Zealand adjustments. Anything below 2 C a century is not a problem and the best they can do is 1?? I thought the whole purpose of cheating was to win? I mean if you’re going to rig the numbers at least get the result you want.
I recall reading a weather article on stuff.co.nz back in about 2000/2001. The author, a weatherman, stated that there had been no significant change in national average temperatures since 1941. The article didn’t stay up on stuff for long!
Realclimate was set up by GISS, not CRU.
Wrong. Read the leaked emails.
Whatever you say, but the fact is that GISS’ Gavin is the public employee who runs Realclimate on the US taxpayers’ dime.
Dr. Ball, didn’t Gavin run the RealClimate hosting server on a computer under his desk at GISS? I’m sure I remember reading that.
Here is Gavin from the past. I wonder whether he is worried about the state of understanding for the temperature standstill?
Note: 2013 was not the hottest year on the record according to NOAA.
“The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality – right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that’s the target.”
Uh Gavin. RSS & UAH, at around 35 years, are showing around 1 deg/CENTURY.
Climate change is in the realm of Operating Thetans. When the high priests of climate change call people deniers, they may be correct, for we non believers really don’t know what they mean by climate change. The priests will tell us what to believe; we are not supposed to doubt priests.
And the priest shall inherit the earth
And us so-called “deniers” are the “Suppressive Persons” (SPs) to those Operating Thetans. Is is not for nothing that I call the alarmists Climate Scientologists.
[video snipped]
[Per site rules, we do not discuss chemtrails. ~mod.]
Dave ….get back on meds !!!!
LOL,Dave. You’re funny. But off topic and off your rocker. Thanks for the humorous interlude.
I could not listen to more than 10 seconds of it, then skipped ahead, heard more of the same, and had to disconnect.
Dude, those things are called clouds.
If they are left by planes, they are trails of condensation…water droplets.
I find it disturbing that you are, or at least claim to be, an educator.
Home schooling, anyone?
Why the dig at homeschoolers? On average home schooled children outperform both pubic and private schooled children.
OK Abe, step away from the Chalupa!
I don’t think it was a ‘dig’ at homeschoolers:
I find it disturbing that you are, or at least claim to be, an educator.
Home schooling, anyone?
Seems to me Menicholas is suggesting homeschooling over subjecting children to such educators.
“I teach native American history on Facebook” probably couldn’t get tenure for kindergarten so holds classes on Facebook. Glad he’s not a REAL TEACHER in a genuine school. But it’s too bad he is passing bad information to the lesser intelligent masses of Facebook. Even looks like and sounds like a pseudo-intellectual dufus
I could not stand to listen long enough to get that part of it.
If you want people to listen to your goof, you have to be careful not to make it so annoying, that no one can listen long enough to get the joke.
The Pope’s position on climate change was not made “ex cathedra”; and, thus, is not an infallible position. Those of us here know just how fallible it is. Unfortunately, it is widely viewed as being authoritative, for no obvious reason.
But, but, but… He’s The Pope.
Yeah – and you would think that with his direct line to the Almighty that he could at least have arranged some hot weather with the odd hurricane or tempest thrown in!
Alex; he is. But not to all!
Oops!
Here’s the attachment,Alex:
Sturgis
Was that JP 1, the Pope of thirty days?
– the Smiling Pope; the September papacy?
JP 2 – a grizzled old Polish scrapper – managed 25 years or so, IIRC.
Auto
The Pope during the Little Ice Age blamed the climate change on Witches. I think that Pope was more accurate than today’s.
https://youtu.be/LObn2Sk7tVg?t=20m
As Renaissance popes go, Innocent VIII was not the worst. Besides promoting the burning of weather witches, he was happy to accept the gift of slaves from King Ferdinand of Aragon, husband of Queen Isabella. He doled them out among the cardinals to maintain their support.
But, like most popes, he was a disgusting, revolting hypocrite. The current incumbent is certainly in this tradition. The communist liberation theologist has not contributed anything at all worthwhile to society since his last real job at age 19.
The sooner the world frees itself from the tyranny of the bishops of Rome, the better. To the extent that the disgusting, revolting Francis hastens this process, the more useful the useless drone will be. Francis the Talking Mule was a lot more useful.
I don’t hold out much hope that the Communist Francis will hasten the demise of the Roman Catholic Church mafia. Ex-pope Benedict was shunted aside in a leftwing palace coup, rather then bumped off, the fate that befell John Paul II and many of his predecessors.
But the farther divorced from physical reality the Church gets, the more likely does it becomes that more and more national churches will adopt the English model and separate themselves from Rome, while maintaining apostolic succession and the other aspects of Catholicism that separates its doctrine from Protestantism.
IMO the Orthodox churches have it right, ie Catholicism without a pope. I look forward to a Christendom freed from the baleful influence of popes. Anglican, Orthodox and non-Roman Catholic believers might eventually unite in a Universal Catholic Church free from the Mafia-like protection racket of the corrupt Roman bishop.
PS:
IMO Francis should be denied entry to the US as an enemy of humanity.
Gloria, can you spell “Eternal Hellfire”?
🙂
Try again.
The picture confused me. The cat ate my homework.
Sorry!
Sturgis
Was that JP 1, the Pope of thirty days?
– the Smiling Pope; the September papacy?
JP 2 – a grizzled old Polish scrapper – managed 25 years or so, IIRC.
Auto
Sorry, I meant JP I as the bumped off pope.
JP II, whatever else he may have done or not done, at least helped defeat the Evil Empire.
Menicholas
September 6, 2015 at 8:22 pm
I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t venerate the presumptuous Vicar of Christ on Earth, ie head of the template for the Mafia’s protection rackets.
Somehow Protestants and Orthodox Catholics manage to be good Christians without benefit of the generally Unholy Father.
Not to worry, Gloria.
I for one am not confused on this in the slightest.
God and organized religion have almost nothing to do with each other.
I can’t resist: Into what category of fallibility is the decision whether or not to declare something “ex cathedra”? Could there not be false positives and false negatives? Or is that decision itself, “ex cathedra”? (Full disclosure: I’m not a Catholic, but I am a Christian.)
Papal infallibility is limited to matters of faith and morals. I guess you could argue that CAGW is a matter of faith; and, that not not following the tenets of the faith would be immoral. However, the Pope did not make the first part of that argument.
I tweaked what George Monbiot said a bit;
“There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change skepticism/realism is spreading like warmth from the sun on a cold day. It exists in a sphere that can only be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to pseudoscientific Warmist claptrap is greeted with derision and much-deserved mockery. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”
Works for me.
[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]
He referred to it as realism?
That is weird, if you ask me.
How can anyone be an alarmist if one thinks that the other side are the realists?
Menicholas, he said he “tweaked” what Monbiot said, meaning that’s not what Monbiot said.
I was tired…thought he tweated it.
My bad.
Maybe you tawt you taw a putty tat? 😉
No, I did. I did see a puddy cat.
+1
Here he George Monbiot of the Guardian demonstrating his flexibility. They have embarrassed themselves by putting themselves into a corner time and again.
First he said that the weather is not the same as climate. Sceptics insist on this fact too.
Then he said that the cold weather and snow was in fact a sign of global warming.
Guardian – 20 December 2010
George Monbiot
That snow outside is what global warming looks like
Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth
…..So why wasn’t this predicted by climate scientists? Actually it was, and we missed it……
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-warming
Right there is a sign of mental disease from Monbiot.
I have to nit-pick with, at least one, of your statements viz. ‘Mann’s credibility with scientists is clearly delineated in Mark Steyn’s latest book.’
No, it’s not.
Mark still has two more volumes to put to press before this task is completed. I suggest that you replace the word ‘delineated’ with the word ‘introduced’.
The adjective is still appropriate.
It was an ironic comment.
[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]
Bobthebear,
Michael Mann is a pseudo-scientist who claims he was awarded the Nobel Prize.
What gets me is the number of alarmists who routinely claim that since a bunch of Mann’s co-workers, using the same data and same methods, and with the guidance of Mann, managed to reproduce Mann’s results, that proves that the hockey stick correct, and hundreds of other papers are wrong.
db
All of us in the EU were awarded the Nobel Prize for something or other.
Political Correctness?
Doing down the Greeks?
Inviting Immigrants [not refugees, who are, always, welcome]?
Perhaps listening Admiringly to Mother Merkel?
something.
And every one of us was a deserving winner a few years ago.
I can’t remember what I did to deserve it, or when, but still . . .
But the bloke they named the warming after – supported, or contributed an axiomatically interesting graph or similar to the real winners – a bunch of Agenda 21 luvvies fixated on Marx [Not Marks – and Spencer].
Do you put NL after your name if a Nobel Laureate [jointly with 500,000,000 or so others equally clueless as to why we won]?
Auto .. ..
I think there needs to be a comprehensive post comparing all of their CAGW icons from 1950 to the present day.
Here’s just a few, SLR, polar bear numbers, deaths from extreme events, wild fires, the hot spot, droughts, snowfalls, NH and SH sea ice etc.
Agree, the list is long and the entire list needs to be exposed including Hansen’s numerous failed fredictions
Why drag Fred into this?
It is a startlingly consistent record of being exactly wrong, until one stops to consider that anyone preaching that the sky is falling, the end is nigh, the world will end, or anything like that…has always been wrong.
Then it is not so startling after all.
But still remarkably consistent.
On the plus side, it seems to have gathered all the would be cultists of the world under one banner, and one that they publicly proclaim allegiance too.
And lured into the wide open those whose testimony is for sale, and/or have no ability to weigh evidence critically and come to logical conclusions.
In these ways, it may be not be a total,100% fubar.
“…has always been wrong.” And will continue to be so until one of them is not… at which point, all of this ‘web knowledge’ we are sharing won’t be worth a load of fetid dingo’s kidneys. A sentient puddle in a pothole would think the world was made for it. A perfect fit. Even as the day heated up, and it began to evaporate. Even as the weather cleared and no more rains came to ‘re-populate’ it. it might still marvel at just how perfectly was the match of itself to its world… right up until the last of it disappeared. Pop.
Better go hide in your fetid hole than, to wait out the end.
Spot on Dr. Ball. This is an excellent summation of the situation. A sad state of affairs indeed.
When the climate STOPS changing ,THEN we should start worrying !!!!
At that point I don’t think there will be anyone around to worry.
That was funny the first twenty times.
From Dr Ball’s article;
· Temperature increases before CO2 in every single record for any period. The only place in the world where CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models.
· CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses and the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that total.
Both sentences need to be put into numbers or anologies better understood by the general public. The amount of C02 is minute and so the increase over the last few decades is even smaller by portion. Can we somehow put this into numbers or language people would be able to understand in terms they are used to?
“I am going to sell you a really good car at $50,000 runs at 1200 rpm with any gas at 40mph that will save you a nickle on gas per tank full” You see no body would buy that silly statement ( or the car).
“The PPM at 4% of CO2 within the boundaries of the total volume of the ever changing atmosphere” (sentence made up by me not Dr Ball) is a sentence that makes most peoples eyes glass over.
We have to change that approach completely.
I am no good at stats but to me that is where we are not clear enough. Statistics and graphs for many on this site are just fine but others just leave the site and go Ho Humm.
@ur momisugly asybot
When one writes, he has to have an audience in mind. Your comment leads me to believe that you would rather that Dr. Ball had targeted a different audience than he did. One could say that about almost any essay on this site or any other one.
This site takes submissions from everyone. Why not take the information presented by Dr. Ball and write an essay more friendly to the audience you would like to see targeted. I am sure that Dr. Ball would not be offended if you cited his work as the underlying source of your information. Or, you could just start fresh with data from wherever you choose.
After teaching for over four decades I have discovered that no explanation does it for everyone in the class. One has to go from many angles to reach everyone most times. (at least in math and science)
~ Mark
I agree Asybot. Using simple facts about CO2 helps most warmists reconsider their false argument.
This one works for me . . . . . “but 400 ppm is such a trivial amount of atmospheric gas when compared to all other gasses. 1 x million divided by 400 is 1 x 2,500th of all the air in the sky. It’s really not a lot.”
Incidentally, by comparison (if one needs further proof) . . . .
Nitrogen (N2) is around 780,800 ppm (nearly 1,952 times more than total CO2)
Oxygen (O2) is around 209,500 ppm (nearly 524 times more than total CO2)
Argon (Ar) is around 9,297 ppm (nearly 23 times more than total CO2)
Naturally occurring Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is around 388 ppm of the total 400ppm
Therefore, anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only around 12 ppm (that’s about 1 x 83,000th of the atmosphere) – and yet it still seems to be widely believed that this microscopic amount of gas has dominated the warming of our Earth during the last century. Even UK vehicle excise duty (road tax) is calculated on how much we contribute to this 1 x 83,000th of the air in the sky.
(Combined total for Neon, Methane, Helium, Krypton, Hydrogen and Xenon is around just 3 ppm)
Or this . . . .
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2014: “Human life evolved with carbon dioxide levels 10 times or more the present 400ppm. Anthropogenic emissions currently account for the annual release of about 7 gigatons (7 billion tons) of carbon into the atmosphere . . . . equal to approximately 3 percent of the total emissions of carbon dioxide by natural sources (i.e. 230 billion tons). Thus all human-produced carbon dioxide is responsible for a mere 0.12 percent of GHG.”
@ur momisugly GeeJam September 7, 2015 at 2:47 am
But the literal fact is, ….. most warmists are like the Bible believing Creationists and are not the least bit interested in reconsidering their false arguments.
Thus the only way to get their attention is to embarrass them by making them look utterly foolish in front of their “god and everyone” …. and in the process some of the “fence straddlers” will be nudged over to the factual science side of the climate change argument.
Most everyone is familiar with, knows and/or believes the claimed fact that both CO2 and H2O vapor (humidity) are, per se, “greenhouse” or global warming gasses.
But what most don’t realize is that for every 400 ppm of CO2 in the near-earth atmosphere ….. there is, in non-desert areas, a minimum of 20,000 ppm of H2O vapor (humidity) in that same near-earth atmosphere ….. and thus it is utterly foolish and asinine for anyone to assert or claim that the CO2 is the direct and/or only cause of the “fuzzy math” calculated “average increases in near-surface air temperatures”.
One could strip out the current 400 ppm of CO2, ….. or add another 400 ppm of CO2 …. and it would make no difference in their “fuzzy math” calculated “average increases in near-surface air temperatures” …….. that is, unless their math gets “funnier”.
Still to abstract for the common person. Let’s try it this way:
My mom decided to bake an atmosphere cake. Boy, was I excited as I hadn’t had one in a long time. She went to the store and bought the ingredients. When she came home she was upset because it cost her $100. She couldn’t understand why the price for all the things she go into the atmosphere cake had gone up. “Well”, I told her,“I heard that CO2 had recently gone up 40%”. She said that would probably account for the increase. So we checked out the receipt and this is what we found.
Nitrogen $78.00
Oxygen $21.00
Argon $0.93
CO2 $0.04
Other $0.03
“Wow”, said I, “it really must be the CO2”. I was so upset that I choked on the first bite of the cake. Of course I blamed the CO2 for that.
I’ve always been uncomfortable with this argument. It’s implying that CO2 can’t be a danger because there is so little of it.
A few grams of arsenic can kill, it’s the dose that makes the poison. Some things are bad in small amounts, other things aren’t bad until they reach much higher concentrations.
In other words, if you wish to prove that small levels of CO2 are harmless, then go ahead and prove it. Don’t just assume that it can’t be harmful because there isn’t much of it. That’s the kind of nonsense we expect from the other side.
re MarkW September 7, 2015 at 7:02 am
Both your posts are straw man arguments, You want proof the a little CO2 is harmless? You breathe in a little every breathe, are you still alive? There’s your proof.
Besides, this was about most people not knowing what amount of CO2 is in the air we breathe. Most people when asked think it is around 20%. They need to be enlightened.
Many people can not pay attention to facts of science, or remember them long enough to realize the difference between .04 % and 20%…it is all just a jumble of numbers to them.
For them, it may be like when I am at a party, and I meet a bunch of people. I may remember the name of the comely lass who offers to get me a fresh drink, but if some guy tells me his name, by the time he finishes saying it, I am more likely to remember the mustard stain on his sweater than what he said.
Not sure really, just guessing. It makes no sense to me…I have vivid memories of science facts I learned over 40 years ago when I was still shedding baby teeth.
I believe that you can use Steve Goddards real name, Tony Heller and his revamped web site can be found here:
http://realclimatescience.com/
Our work will be done when the proper temperature response to a doubling of CO2 is recognized as being +/-0.5C.
I believe it will be closer to 0.2-0.3C.
The AGW hysteria will be included in a new edition of the book by Charles Mackay.
tell me more…
Steve McIntyre has another good post. This time looking at their so called ocean 2K hockey stick.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/04/the-ocean2k-hockey-stick/
Here is the reason why there has been no surface warming for 18 years at a time when atmospheric CO2 has been rising year by year.
The canonical so called 1-dimension no ‘feedbacks’ calculation – which was done by a who’s who of the cult of CAGW founding fathers – to determine the surface temperature change for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 assumed that the increased CO2 does not change the lapse rate which is physically not possible.
Convection cooling is a physical fact not a theory and cannot be ignored in the without ‘feedbacks’ calculation. The change in forcing at the surface of the planet is less than the change in forcing higher in the atmosphere due to the increased convection cooling caused by greenhouse gases. We do not need to appeal to crank ‘science’ that there is no greenhouse gas forcing to destroy the cult of CAGW ‘scientific’ argument that there is a global warming crisis problem to solve.
There is a forcing change due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 however that forcing change is almost completely offset by the increase in convection. Due to the increased lapse rate (3% change) due to convection changes (the 3% change in the lapse rate, reduces the surface forcing by a factor of four, the forcing higher in the atmosphere remains the same) therefore warming at the surface of the planet is only 0.1C to 0.2C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, while the warming at 5 km above the surface of the planet is 1C. As a warming of 0.1C to 0.2C is insufficient to cause any significant feedback change, the zero feedback change for a doubling of CO2 is ballpark the same as the with feedback response.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoOEJhcUZBNzFBd3M/view?pli=1
Transcript of a portion of Weart’s interview with Hansen.
In addition to the above error/emission, the no ‘feedbacks’ calculation for the forcing change due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, ignored the fact that the absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap. As the planet is 70% covered by water there is a great deal of water in the lower atmosphere particularly in the tropical region. Redoing the 1-dimension calculation taking into account the reduced forcing in the lower atmosphere due to the overlap of the absorption spectrum of water and CO2 reduces the forcing by a factor of 4 which also reduces the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to around 0.2C.
Check out figure 2 in this paper.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281982%29039%3C2923%3ARHDTIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The lapse rate depends on density. The atmosphere’s density doesn’t change much with a doubling of CO2 because it is way way less than 1% of the atmosphere. So, yes, the lapse rate will change a bit, but not enough to matter. wiki
The ELR (Which, for any who are not aware, is the Environmental Lapse Rate, which measures the change in temperature of the atmosphere with height) changes everywhere, all the time, and every day.
It is a key to accurate meteorological forecasting and, at least in the old days, was one of the main reasons for sending up radiosondes. It allows a forecaster to determine, for example, if the atmosphere is stable, unstable, conditionally instable, etc.
Since it is highly variable (I read Mr. Astley’s comments to referring to the average ELR), it must be influenced by more than just density.
In the places where the most interesting weather is occurring, at the margins of air masses, temperature inversions, rapid surface heating…the lapse rate at different altitudes is not constant.
Also, I think for the sake of clarity one should distinguish between the ELR and other lapse rates, such as the dry and wet adiabatic rates.
As usual, all comments are to the best of my knowledge. It may be best not to quote me in your dissertation without checking for yourself.
The change in the lapse rate is due to the greenhouse gases’ long wave radiation properties.
The cult of CAGW tells use the greenhouse molecule will heat the atmosphere and then ignores the change in convection that the greenhouse molecules cause when the greenhouse molecule absorbs long wave radiation.
The lapse rate changes due to the increase in greenhouse gas as it is a physical fact, not a theory, that hot air rises. Greenhouse gases absorb long wave radiation (the amount of long wave radiation moving through the atmosphere is continually changing throughout the day) and hence warm. Warm rising air causes higher colder elevation air to fall.
What I am saying (that the lapse rate is dependent on the amount and the type of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere) is basic physics of atmospheric gases. What I am saying is absolutely in agreement with Salby’s comment in his video presentation on this subject and on the subject of what is the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2. My comment is also in agreement with Salby’s graduate level text book Physics of Atmospheric Gases.
We do not however need to determine if my above comment is or is not correct by scientific debate. If it is correct the vast majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover.
i.e. If the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover, global warming is reversible. If the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2, the warming should not be reversible.
The cult of CAGW have made the medieval warming period go away by data manipulation The cult of CAGW have made the hiatus of 18 years with no warming go away by data manipulation. The cult of CAGW will not be able to hide global cooling. How will the media, the public, and the politicians respond if it is determined that the entire scientific premise of the IPCC was incorrect, fudged, a big fib?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
There is currently an astonishing change occurring to sun. There is now obvious quarter by quarter changes to almost all solar parameters. The solar observations continue to support the assertion that the solar cycle is not slowing down, it has been interrupted.
Clarifying my earlier comment:
Mr. Astley,
I understand you to be saying that the average ELR must rise.
My comment was directed in part or the benefit of anyone reading who does not have a clear understanding of exactly what is referred to by this term.
And partly at the rather cryptic comment by commie bob, who seemed to be disagreeing with/contradicting what you are asserting.
I have to say that I would, myself, not refer to a wiki article on any subject relating to climate change, although it does seem to be reliable for referencing such things as the physical properties of titanium, the mass of the oceans, or other things which are not generally the subject of much difference of opinion.
The wiki article does seem to be a straight reading of textbook definitions of lapse rates, in this particular case.
I am not exactly clear at this point on the exact mechanism by which having CO2 increase will increase the lapse rate, how the precise amount (3%) was arrived at, and or whether this is a linear effect.
We know that the supposed forcing effect of CO2 is not linear, and the incremental amount of additional heating caused by increasing CO2 is diminished with further increases.
What’s it called when you accuse your adversary of what you yourself are doing? I think ‘projection’ refers to someone unknowingly doing so, there must be a specific term for doing it as a deliberate tactic.
Pathethic ????
Casting aspersions could work.
I was always under the impression that it was called projection when it was intentionally done.
Need not be intentional
For it to be a psychological rather than a mental phenomenon, it would seem to have to be done at least partially subconsciously.
I think when someone says things one knows to be untrue on purpose, we should just call it what it is…lying.
“What’s it called when you accuse your adversary of what you yourself are doing? ”
That is a standard tactic in covert influence operations.
Known by the acronymn, ANDEMCA: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.
Egregious examples are the decades-long attacks against those who spoke the truth about Alger Hiss’s status as a spy. Also used against those who spoke the truth about the Rosenburg’s spying operations.
Today we see it used by the political heirs of those operations–the Politically Correct Progressives. Including the CAGW clique, they’ve inherited the goals–destroying normal civilization, including capitalism, without the inconvenient example of an actual country being destroyed by their rule contemporaneously.
[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]
“Are you really placing the Chinese among political progressives. That’s a WOW!”
Chinese? You’re reading something that’s not there, bear.
The PC-Progs are Obama’s handlers and political party–Americans, all. Bent on the destruction of American capitalism and exceptionalism.
Hiss and the Rosenbergs were operations run by the Soviets.
Chinese?
bobbybear,
The Chinese are doing what is in their country’s self-interest. That makes them completely different from so-called “progressives”.
Great to see you here Kent. Enjoyed your books very much and admire your stand against communism and political correctness.
Thanks for your note, Leonard.
The CAGW operation is the tip of the spear in the PC-Progs’ efforts to destroy Normal-American capitalism. I’ve been operating to counter them for a decade now.
While WUWT is on the forefront of countering the CAGW, it’s a bit disheartening to see so many WUWT warriors floundering around on the information warfare battlefield, cluelessly.
The answers to who/what/why/how/when/where PC-Progressives would /could carry out a massive fraud designed to destroy American exceptionalism and the capitalist based economy are laid out in Willing Accomplices.
We waste enormous amounts of time and effort in navel-gazing, amazed at how our opponents could be so mendacious.
Beginning from the basis of understanding the belief system, political strategy and tactics of our opponents, we could do great things in counter-acting the PC-Prog operations–most importantly the Mann-caused Global Warming scam.
But without a clear understanding of our opponents, we flail around wailing and knashing teeth, with no results.
It’s a life and death struggle–information warfare–covert influence. They are well-versed in the deception-based communications. Our general population are babes in the woods, playing by the Marquisse de Queensbury’s rules (‘clean break, neutral corner…”), while our opponents are using concealed knives, brass knuckles, and chunks of concrete.
But I’ll keep on sharing the truth. Slowly, slowly. Think positive!
http://www.willingaccomplices.com
Sutainability = Shelter In Place..Permanently
tu quoque (you too)
I should have added one word to my original question. “What’s it called when you *preemptively* accuse your adversary of what you yourself are doing?”
Pre-emptive accusation of projection?
You are talking information warfare/covert action.
This is the realm of very bad people doing very bad things.
Details: http://www.willingaccomplices.com
piper paul, I can see that the rate of knots you arms flail at as you attempt to excavate the earth underneath you, has increased considerably. Have you thought about not digging at the ground anymore or does being a pretentious prat come naturally to you?
Craig, if you have a point, or something to say, why not just say it?
I see that Craig is providing us with an example of what PiperPaul was talking about.
I always called it the mirror trick, but that is a personal label.
A diversion.
As a deliberate tactic? Hypocrite works.
Are those who use the term ‘denialists’ appropriately referred to as ‘deprivationists’?
I can think of a whole long list of appropriate terms for these people.
Many of them would violate site policy on decorum, foul language, and manners.
Devastating rebuttal to global warming devotees.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/22/patrick-j-michaels-testifies-before-the-committee-of-natural-resources-at-the-hearing-an-analysis-of-the-obama-administrations-social-cost-of-carbon/
Yup. Warmunistas d@ny the best science available on ECS and the economic and social benefit of higher CO2. The truth is indeed inconvenient.
The politically correct nonsense is beyond out of control. If you have a stance on immigration you are a racist. If you support the free market you have no empathy for the poor. If you are skeptical of cagw you are souless and don’t care about the environment. All these stances will just about run you off the campus of any university. The time might soon come when individuals are prosecuted or jailed for these ideas and opinions.
And since the demand for respect is lopsided, “they” can offend at any level but under their political correctness rules the side attempting logical argument can do nothing but attempt to tolerate the abuse and respond with politeness hoping to gain some ground. In the future, this attitude will eventually be the economic and immigration downfall of Europe & the U.S. (see Steyn).
By bestowing upon themselves oppressed underdog status they claim the right to use “asymmetrical warfare” tactics (e,g., they can ruthlessly and viciously attack their adversaries and yet shrink back and portray themselves as innocent victims when their target defends him/herself. It really is pathetic, vile behavior). This is why their control of the narrative via a compliant/biased/ignorant media is so essential.
I do not think so Charlie, as the layers of hypocrisy are now so thick they are ensnaring even those who are laying down the PC gauntlet.
It will collapse of it’s own weight, or be subjected to the mother of all backlashes.
It is only a matter of time.
Is the rise of Trump a signpost of the backlash?
It may well be.
Time will tell.
In Canada, preaching from certain sections of the Bible can land you in jail.
. . . and don’t get me started about how they’ll string you up if you don’t believe Bruce Jenner is a real WOMAN!
“The time might soon come when individuals are prosecuted or jailed for these ideas and opinions.”
Witch burning was tried in the past … you just have to love such christian rationalization.
Nice display of bigotry there.
Assigning to those you don’t like, characteristics that are truey universal in scope.
A big thanks to Canadian hero Dr. Ball for another great posting.
Please keep it up.
[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]
bobthebear is making baseless assertions — the usual tactic of those who cannot produce science-based arguments.
You lose the argument that way, bob.
Sigh, when will everyone realize it’s not about Climate Change/AGW? Useful idiots are praised and remunerated for advancing the false narrative. They are being told they are saving the world and they believe it. MSM has been purchased by those interested in taking down capitalism and what can be an easier and more elegant way other than denying the industrialists access to energy? The Club of Rome and United Nations have openly stated this and put it in writing for everyone to see if they took the time to read it. All they have to do is play the shame game and claim ‘conspiracy theory’ when someone tries to out them. Like it or not they are good at it as well. If the threats and fear mongering are successful long enough for them to gain control it will be a moot point whether AGW is real or not. Don’t forget to vote.
Tim,
There is other evidence that something is rotten in the state of “climate science”. First, increasing ice in Antarctica has systematically been downplayed if not denied. Second, I don’t recall EVER having seen a study showing or predicting a positive effect of warming on humans, wildlife, crops or on anything else, anywhere on the planet. Sorry, not possible. This is proof of a powerful publication or confirmation bias or both. The corollary is that cooling would only have positive effects, which is demonstrably false, at least where I live (Canada).
[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]
You could not possibly be more wrong.
Oil companies have drilled in the Arctic for decades. They’ve been trying to get permission to drill in ANWR for decades, as well.
The NW Passage is a lot less open now than it was just a few years ago.
Please try to get with the program and keep up.
The controversy over North Slope and Prudhoe Bay production in Alaska goes back at least the 1980’s.
I’d consult Daniel Schrag. 🙂
These numbers are out of date. The 19 years at the surface should probably be lower due to the record high anomalies over the past year. However if these high anomalies were due to adjustments, well that is a different issue that needs to be addressed.
But the 16 years was for an older version of UAH. With the new UAH6.0beta3, the 16 should be 26 in line with RSS since they are now very similar.
UAH and RSS are similar but not as similar as they once were. There seems to be an increasing divergence going on with RSS showing warmer than UAH and I wonder why?
Actually UAH got warmer very recently when beta3 came out as compared to beta2. See:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/09/uah-v6-0-global-temperature-update-for-aug-2015-0-28-c/#comment-198744
rah,
No, that’s not the case. RSS and UAH have been converging:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/trend
There isn’t any significant difference between them now.
WFT is totally useless for showing what you are attempting to show. They more or less had converged already when UAH6.0beta2 came out, although beta3 widened things just a bit, however while the pause is 18 years and 8 months on RSS, it is 18 years and 4 months on UAH6.0beta3.
But WFT still uses UAH5.6 so it is way off. If you want to find when the slope is 0 for UAH6.0beta3, you must go to Nick Stokes’ site here:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
Werner B,
Thanks for the pointer. I compared UAH and RSS on the blog you linked to. The current difference is so small that I couldn’t tell from the y-axis, but it seems to be only about one-thirtieth or one-fortieth of a degree. They are essentially the same.
That small difference also has to be within measurement uncertainty. The difference between RSS and UAH certainly seems to be smaller than the difference between UAH beta2 and beta3 versions.
So as far as I can see, there’s almost no difference now between the two satellites.
Of course, this kind of discussion distracts from the fact that all the alarming predictions over the past couple of decades said that global warming would accelerate. It hasn’t. In fact, there has been almost no global warming at all, despite a steady rise in CO2.
Therefore, the predictions were wrong. That falsifies the CO2=AGW conjecture (I’m not saying that CO2 causes no global warming; it just does not cause enough to quantify any measurable relationship between a rise in CO2 and any subsequent warming).
A Conjecture, a Hypothesis, a Theory, and a Law all have one thing in common: they must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. If they cannot do that they are falsified.
The CO2=AGW conjecture has been repeatedly falsified. But rather than go back and try to find out why their predictions were so wrong, the alarmists have dug in their heels, and now they have even conscripted a science illiterate — the President of the U.S. — to argue for them.
They have no desire to find out why they were wrong. They just want to make everyone accept their ‘carbon’ narrative. But skeptics say: give us some convincing evidence. We want verifiable, testable measurements quantifying man-made global warming. If it’s dangerous, show us the global harm being caused.
That’s the job of skeptics, no? We must falsify scientific conjectures and hypotheses, if at all possible. This one has been easy. That’s why their answer has turned to politics, and away from science.
That is exactly what people like this need to be told:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/04/the-pause-lengthens-yet-again/#comment-2021937
Andrew Bolt looks at more evidence of the real deniers as well.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/not_drowning_not_battered_by_more_cyclones_not_our_fault/
Just to add a further point to dbstealey’s fine post above (September 6, 2015 at 7:38 pm) alarmists have long-since claimed that as a result of already-emitted CO2 future warming was ‘locked in’ and ‘guaranteed’ for decades to come. Despite increased CO2 throughout both of the last 2 decades the 18 years and counting Pause has well and truly nailed that one, too. Oh dear, another one bites the dust.