Halfway to 2°C Warming – and All is Well

temperature change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

There’s been a lot of fuss in green leaning news outlets, that we have breached the 1C threshold, and we are halfway to the precipice of Climageddon.

For example, according to the government supported climate alarmist BBC;

Global temperatures are set to rise more than one degree above pre-industrial levels according to the UK’s Met Office.

Figures from January to September this year are already 1.02C above the average between 1850 and 1900. If temperatures remain as predicted, 2015 will be the first year to breach this key threshold.

The world would then be half way towards 2C, the gateway to dangerous warming.

The new data is certain to add urgency to political negotiations in Paris later this month aimed at securing a new global climate treaty.

Difficult to measure

For researchers, confusion about the true level of temperatures in the 1750s, when the industrial revolution began and fossil fuels became widely used, means that an accurate assessment of the amount the world has warmed since then is very difficult.

To get over this problem, the Met Office use an average of the temperatures recorded between 1850 and 1900, which they argue makes their analysis more accurate.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34763036

Leaving aside the questionable methods of some of the world’s temperature estimates, my big question is – So what?

Just like the big noise about breaching 400ppm CO2 for the first time, this is a big deal about nothing. There is a distinct lack of extreme weather, when compared to the historical record. Crop yields are at an all time high, thanks to CO2 fertilisation. Arctic sea ice has proven to be embarrassingly resilient. And of course, lets not mention the Antarctic.

Climate alarmists can’t even produce a genuine climate refugee. Greens tried really hard, but the climate refugee case fell apart when real courts reviewed their “evidence”.

So why does the BBC, which was once the gold standard for honest reporting, stoop to what is in my opinion such sloppy partisanship? I have a theory. I believe the BBC are in a lot of trouble, and are desperate to maintain a perception of their legitimacy, in a world which has moved beyond needing their services.

The BBC is funded by a compulsory subscription. Unlike TV networks in most parts of the world, if you don’t pay your BBC license fee, people come round with clipboards, armed with extraordinary legislated powers to enter your property without a warrant, to look for televisions. Even if you don’t watch the BBC, in Britain, if you own a television, you are supposed to pay a compulsory TV license fee, to fund the BBC. The license fee might only be a few hundred dollars per year – but for poor people in Britain, already struggling with skyrocketing energy and food prices, in no small part caused by Britain’s climate insanity, this is now a real issue.

There is a growing community backlash against the BBC’s funding model, and some of the alleged bully tactics used by license fee collectors, extracting a few precious pounds of savings from the poorest people in Britain.

If the BBC can’t continue to demonstrate their relevance, within a few years they will be finished. Top level British government ministers are already talking about scrapping the license fee. Stripped of their compulsory, government enforced license fee, the BBC’s top heavy pyramid of well paid middle managers will likely topple under the pressure of real commercial competition.

So the BBC have to stay relevant, they have to provide a service which ensures their continued support from Britain’s political establishment. I think you can see what strategy I believe the BBC chose, to ensure their continued “relevance”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 13, 2015 2:30 pm

Would this be the same BBC who claimed that sea levels had risen by 8 foot since 1990?

richard verney
Reply to  Paul Homewood
November 14, 2015 1:19 am

Checking facts has never been a strong point for the BBC, especially if these would stand in the way of the viewpoint that they wish to promote, and of course, they have banned impartiality in this matter so desperate are they to further ‘the cause’ .

Reply to  Paul Homewood
November 14, 2015 6:45 am

Yes, the same BBC who, on their weather forecast, have just replaced forecast rainfall amounts in mm rather than inches. Sadly, to a majority of viewers, this would sound much more: all down to AGW of course!

Reply to  Dave
November 14, 2015 4:39 pm

“Everyone run for the hills!! We’re going to get 10 inches of rain!!!”
“What?!? That’s 10mm of rain you say?”

November 13, 2015 2:30 pm

One degree above the Little Ice Age, the coldest period during the entire Holocene Epoch. Oh the humanity!!

Reply to  kamikazedave
November 13, 2015 3:16 pm

I too had wondered that identical thought. Right after the bottom of the Maunder Minimum… geniuses!

Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
November 13, 2015 10:04 pm

“Global temperatures are set to rise…” Whose doing the setting? I wondered how they were always able to say: “the hottest month/year/decade ever.” They have now come out and admitted that the temperatures are set.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
November 13, 2015 10:16 pm

The last deep cold spell of the LIA was the Dalton Minimum in the late 18th and early 19th century. The Maunder was in the late 17th and very early 18th centuries. The other cold snap of the LIA was the Spörer Minimum. Some might include the Wolf, but IMO that was a counter-trend cold spell occurring toward the end of the Medieval Warm Period, because the MWP had a last gasp of warmth in the latter 14th century. It and the earlier Oort weren’t as severe as the Maunder, nor were the Spörer and the Dalton.

Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
November 14, 2015 2:07 am

@ gloateus, no,no,no,.. ask any CAGW person and they will tell you LIA or the MWP never happened. How could it? Co2 levels didn’t change. If you need proof consult the hockey stick chart. It clearly shows co2 levels and temperature. There was no cooling or warming. This is settled science. And 97% of scientist believe that? (sarc of the highest order of CAGW)

Reply to  kamikazedave
November 14, 2015 3:37 pm

And let us not forget to mention that the 2 degree bench mark for what will be “dangerous”, was just a made up number, pulled out of thin air and more or less a random figure.
When they talk about this in future history texts, I can only wonder what they will say about this mass insanity?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Menicholas
November 14, 2015 10:46 pm

Regarding “random” –
It does not have a scientific or calculated source but neither is it random. It is chosen – thus not random – to serve a purpose for the CAGW crowd: see The Case For …by J. Koomey
The issue has been reported on by Bob Tisdale at WUWT and Bob links to NoTrickZone. That link is here: Guest post by Bob Tisdale
Read comments on Bob’s post and also on NTZ.

Lance Wallace
November 13, 2015 2:30 pm

“The HadCRUT database showed that in the first nine months of this year, the global mean temperature had just gone above 1C, hitting 1.02 with a error factor of plus or minus 0.11C.”
Wow, seems kinda cold to me!

Reply to  Lance Wallace
November 13, 2015 7:54 pm

And HadCRUT comes from the birthplace of AGW and the home of ClimateGate, the University of East Anglia.

Reply to  AndyJ
November 13, 2015 8:16 pm

HadCRUT is a combined op. The Climate Research Unit at UEA works with the Hadley Centre to produce it. (Margaret Thatcher set up the Hadley Centre.)

November 13, 2015 2:33 pm

In Europe temperatures were somewhat elevated in the early 1800’s, an inconvenient truth that js brushed over, consider these long temperature series:

Reply to  Hans Erren
November 13, 2015 3:01 pm

Showing also no temperature increase in ca. 25 years it seems.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Hans Erren
November 13, 2015 10:11 pm

The Met has cooked the CET, too. The late 20th century warming is exaggerated and 21st century would probably show cooling if not cooked.
They’ve also cooled and leveled the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
However the post-Dalton Minimum warming appears not to have been toned down. Same thing happened after the Maunder Minimum. The early 18th century warming, rebounding from the Maunder, was both bigger and lasted longer than the late 20th century warming.

November 13, 2015 2:35 pm

If temperatures remain as predicted, 2015 will be the first year to breach this key threshold.

That is if they use the data set with the adjustment knob attached. Doubtful that the satellite record will make the threshold.

M Courtney
November 13, 2015 2:38 pm

Roger Harrabin is the “journalist” behind 28gate.
I’m convinced he’s helping the Tories abolish the BBC.
Maybe willingly. Maybe as a useful idiot.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 14, 2015 1:05 pm

Shall we assume that he is the chief hider of the NASA Zwally study?
All other MSM channels have variously contorted the findings, but they have had to confront the fact that they do exist.
But, Mr (“balanced”) Harrabin and friends seem to have deemed the satellite and GPS aided NASA results to be unpublishable filth, fit only for room 101.
An inconvenient truth indeed!!!
The great British Public must never be told that 90% of the worlds land based ice – IS GROWING!!!
Aaaargh, what if any of them accidentally open a copy of the Daily Mail.
Don’t worry we’ve got that covered – we can just ridicule the DM as the last bastion of backward ignorant senile old fogeys and Clarkson clones.
Censor the science and ridicule your opponents.
Hurrah for unbiased balanced state sanctioned journalism.

November 13, 2015 2:56 pm

Almost half of that 1C occurred prior to 1940, and thus could not have been caused by AGW.

November 13, 2015 3:00 pm

How many home thermostats can maintain +/- 1 degree between 2 rooms or over 24 hours?
Who cares?

November 13, 2015 3:01 pm

When people say “Limit the warming to 2 degrees C” what they are really saying is “Limit the adjusted data of global average temperature to a 2 degree C rise”. None of us can sense “global temperature”, we can only sense local temperature. So the change in global temperature is whatever they tell it is, and what they tell us is the raw measurements of temperature that they take require SIGNIFICANT (and continuous) adjustments. They say we are half way to the 2 C benchmark, but 75% of that rise is because of the adjustments to the data. So the solution is right in front of us. Change the “subjective adjustments” to stop the warming, or reverse it. But, oh wait, that would remove the need to take any action against global warming, reduce the spending on climate studies, kill the jobs within corporations to develop a climate change policy and so forth. In short it would squash the cash cow for climatologists, which is the fear of global warming. Now to the world of climate scientists, THAT is Climagedon.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Steve
November 13, 2015 4:07 pm

Steve — Let us see the statement — The IEA report has worrying conclusion that the world won’t be able to limit warming to 2 °C even if all the pledges (INDCs) submitted in advance of Paris Summit get implemented, “The (global) emissions trajectory implies a long-term temperature increase of 2.7 °C by 2100. A major course correction is still required to achieve the world’s agreed climate goal. As the largest source of global greenhouse-gas emissions, the energy sector must be at the heart of global action to tackle climate change.” — My response on this is as follows:
The global [land & ocean] temperature data of 1880 to 2010 following the WMO 1966 methodology separated trend from cyclic variation. From the trend line it is clear that by 2100, the global [land & water] temperature may rise to 1.30 oC from 1880. That is in 220 years the rise is 1.30 oC; this is around 0.6 oC per century. This consists of three components. One of them is emission component. Even if we take this as 50% [my suggestion is 25% only], then the emission component [global warming] is 0.3 oC per century. To reach 2 oC, the time taken is: around six and half centuries. In fact this global [land & water] temperature is over estimate. This is seen from satellite and balloon data. According to balloon and satellite data to reach 2 oC it will take more than 20 centuries at the present rate of emissions. We must note the fact the groups are talking 2 oC with reference to emission reduction only and thus 2 oC is not the global [land & ocean] temperature rise.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 14, 2015 11:07 pm

You can get the proper degree symbol to show in various ways. Special symbols are shown on Ric Werme’s guide here at WUWT (scroll way down). Find on the right side of this page a white on blue rectangle.
His suggestion, type with no spaces these 5 characters & d e g ;
I use LibreOfficeWriter on a “MS Windows” machine and type holding down the “Alt” key 0 1 7 6
When I let up the Alt key the symbol appears in my text: °

DD More
Reply to  Steve
November 13, 2015 6:38 pm

Steve, you forgot to mention “the pre industrial temperature”. I’ll go with AD 0041. That is pre industrial & was about 1 degree warmer than now. We will still have 2 degrees to go.

November 13, 2015 3:02 pm

The post has two parts, 1C and BBC ‘tax’.
The first is just silly, since 2C was made up. Schnellnhuber of Potsdam/Pope fame publicly claimed credit, apparently erroneously.
The second is a poor choice which British voters should overturn. Or, rename BBC feeds as PRAVDA. Got to say, though, I really enjoy my inexpensive copy of the BBC Blue Planet series UK TV fees paid for. Thanks.

richard verney
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 14, 2015 1:25 am

Agreed. In this digital age, BBC output can be encrypted and those who want to watch it can pay a subscription charge. Those who do not can enjoy the other free to air channels which are paid for by advertising.
I see no reason why I should be forced to pay (under force of law) what is in effect a political donation to a political party the views of which I do not support, and on some issues despise.

Reply to  ristvan
November 13, 2015 4:09 pm

Here is Schnellnhuber saying he was the one who invented the 2C limit and explaining it is nonsense but it gave the politicians a “sound bite”
Look to part 8 of the series of articles.

November 13, 2015 3:03 pm

Is this the same Met Office that this same BBC was going to fire because of its unreliable and crappy forcasts? Just sayin.

Reply to  Logoswrench
November 14, 2015 2:04 am

In the interests of accuracy, the BBC is required, from time to time, to put out to tender the services it buys in from outside. On this occasion another company put in a cheaper tender than the Met Office so the BBC was obliged to accept it.
The new weather company will almost certainly use data from the Met Office to make up the forecasts.
And yes, I did say make up.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 14, 2015 3:15 am

The MetO runs the network of data points and will still continue to provide the data. As with any take over of a contract, employees have a right to work in the same job for the new bunch so even the presenters may be the same. What might – note might – be different is how they use that data to produce forecasts. Hard to see how the new lot could be much worse. The MetO hides behind an ever changing ‘forecast’ to claim it’s accuracy. You would need to save a lot of their forecasts to see how far back they were wrong. A funny example I saw last summer was on the live Test Match Special text feed where a comment was made about a forecast they had been handed was different to the one they were given only an hour earlier.

November 13, 2015 3:04 pm

If only the world’s average temperature was to rise a few degrees, the better times such as during the Medieval Warming, So how do the Greens explain that, or was it a case that it never happened.
While they did not have thermometers back then, they knew when the water froze that it was cold, and when the Sun shone, seldom during the little ice age, it occasionally got a bit warmer. People actually felt warmmer.
A proper check of all the writton records from both Europe and the likes of China and Japan shows that climate facts were recorded. Rulers were aware that people with full belly’s were happy people and that hungry people were a big worry, so its all recorded.
But the Greens are not interested in facts, its faith that drives them. And the Media goes along with this rubbbish as it helps to fill the blank pages or the lack of TV news. .

November 13, 2015 3:07 pm

To anyone here:
What is the motivation to deny climate change so vehemently?

Reply to  jw
November 13, 2015 3:19 pm

Define “climate change”.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 13, 2015 3:22 pm

anthropogenic climate change

Reply to  dbstealey
November 13, 2015 3:22 pm

rise in average global temperature due to human-created emissions

Reply to  jw
November 13, 2015 3:25 pm

That’s better.
Do you want opinions, or do you want science?
This is a science site, so we prefer to use data. Is that OK?

Reply to  dbstealey
November 13, 2015 4:03 pm

OK jw, now prove that CO2 is responsible for most of the rise in temperature.
Keep in mind that it has been much warmer than it is today many times in the last 10K years, while CO2 levels were lower.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 13, 2015 4:28 pm

The climate has been changing for approximately 4.5 billion years !!!!!

richard verney
Reply to  dbstealey
November 14, 2015 1:41 am

But even if climate change is defined as “anthropogenic climate change” there has still been no change in climate. At most, currently, the winter season is a little shorter, with winter coming later, and Spring a little earlier.
Temperature is just one of many constantly varying parameters that make up climate. A temperature change is not in itself a change in climate.
The UK is a classic example. Nobody suggest that it has 4 to 7 different climate regimes, and yet the temperature of the UK from one end to the other is frequently different by about 6 degrees, and not infrequently by more than that.
As a general rule of thumb, northern Scotland/Scottish Isles are some 1 to 2 degC cooler than the boarders, which is some 1 to 2 degC cooler than Wales, which is 1 to 2 deg cooler than the Midlands, which is 1 to 2 degC cooler than the South East, which is 1 to 2 degC cooler than the South West, which is 1 to 2 degC cooler than the Channel isles.
PS> At the moment the UK Met Office shows a 5 degC difference with Stornoway being listed as 6degC, and Pembroke and Brighton as 11degC. I couldn’t find details of the Channel Isles, but on Yahoo weather this is listed as 12degC with an expected high of 14degC. So overall, currently, there is a difference of 6 degC which is 3 times the scary 2 degC rise, and no one in the Channel Islands is claiming that Armageddon has been ravished upon them because they are some 6 degrees warmer than Scotland.

Reply to  jw
November 13, 2015 4:02 pm

Nobody is denying climate change.
We are denying that CO2 is responsible for more than a tiny percentage.
Why do you deny the science?

richard verney
Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2015 1:51 am

I am. There is a fundamental misconception as to what climate is.
Some people say that climate constantly changes, that is to misunderstand what climate is. If climate is never stasis, and it never is because it is composed of many different parameters that constantly vary between bounds, mere change in one (or even more than one) of these constantly wandering and varying parameters, is not climate change, nor even evidence of climate change. Change is simply what climate is, and what climate does.
It is only when there is a change beyond the bounds of natural variation and this is sustained for a lengthy period is there any climate change.
Presently, notwithstanding the relatively recent rise in temperature (and this has been ongoing since the LIA), we have not seen any climate change.

Reply to  jw
November 13, 2015 4:18 pm

The rejection is not primarily of climate change, but of catastrophic climate change.
The motivation is the waste of resources that combatting CO2 emissions will entail.
Another motivation is dislike of being preached to and lied to.

Reply to  jw
November 13, 2015 4:33 pm

What is the motivation to deny climate change so vehemently?
1. I do not deny climate change, nor even that there is an anthropogenic component that is significant. There of course is.
2. Having studied the matter, I can come to no other conclusion than the anthropogenic portion is so small is to be nearly impossible to measure.
3. Having studied the mitigation actions being proposed, my conclusion is that a great deal of harm will be done to the population of the world, most particularly the poorest among us.
I vehemently oppose policies that have no real impact. The commitments being asked of the world for the treaty in Paris this year are, by the very models used to justify them, unlikely to change the temperature 85 years by now by more than 0.2 degrees, and most likely even less than that. Purveyors of “green” technology will reap billions in profits in return, and the poor of the world will be sentenced to lives that are brutish and short.
D*mn right I am vehement. Anyone who cares about other people and has taken the time to understand the data and the repercussions of the proposed mitigation schemes would be.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 13, 2015 5:44 pm

Can any anthropogenic component be significant if it isn’t measurable?

richard verney
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 14, 2015 2:07 am

If we cannot detect the signal to CO2 because of the noise of natural variation and the limitations and error bounds of our best measuring devices, it follows that:
Climate Sensitivity (if any at all) could be large if the bounds of natural variation and/or the error bounds and limitations of our best measuring equipment are large.
If, of course, the bounds of natural variation and the error bounds and limitations of our best measuring equipment are small, then Climate sensitivity to CO2 (if any at all) must likewise be small.
I personally consider that the evidence points to natural variability being large (after all, we know that it is responsible for the MWP and the LIA, even if one discounts the Holocene Optimum since that may be related to orbital changes and the like), and the error bounds and limitations in the equipment and the data that it produces to also be large, such that I accept that from an observational point of view, we cannot yet rule out the possibility that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 could be large.
Common sense suggests that Climate sensitivity (if any at all) cannot be that large since common sense suggests that feedbacks must be a net negative or otherwise there would have been runaway warming in the past, and we would not be here today to discuss this issue. Accordingly, I doubt that Climate Sensitivity (if any at all) is as large as the no feedback scenario of 1.2degC, and consider that for common sense reasons alone, it must be less than that figure.
I suspect that in 10 or so years time, at current levels of CO2 (circa 360ppm and above), that Climate Sensitivity (if any at all) will be observed to be less than 1 degC, and if we have sensitive enough equipment and can reduce the error bounds, it will come in at less than 0.8degC.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 14, 2015 1:35 pm

I see no reason to duplicate the above (davidmhoffer) with only minor variation.
Although I would add:
4. The scientific method is the most powerful tool that humans have for the advancement of knowledge.
So we must preserve the scientific method from corruption and politicization.
Science is too precious a thing for us to sit and watch whilst it is hijacked and destroyed.
And critical thinking and skepticism are a vital part of the development of scientific ideas.
That’s another reason for my vehemence.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 14, 2015 10:49 pm

“Purveyors of “green” technology will reap billions in profits in return, and the poor of the world will be sentenced to lives that are brutish and short.”
I have read a handful of the mitigations as well, if you’re talking about the papers that each country submitted to cop21. In what way would they be harmful to the poorest of the world? Do you contend that the fossil fuel industry is NOT abusive of the world’s poor or that many of the ongoing wars do not essentially boil down to to access to and ownership of fossil fuel resources?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 14, 2015 10:54 pm

In addition, it just seems pointless to rant (not you dmh, but many others) here. It seems like preaching to the choir, and in a very loud and noisy way. If you only choose to read and interact with others who share your views, your views will never be challenged and learning will likely not occur.
I say that knowing full well that this is done on both sides, which is why I’m here and not at a climate change website.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 15, 2015 8:37 am

Reply to jw @
jw November 14, 2015 at 10:49 pm wrote:
I have read a handful of the mitigations as well, if you’re talking about the papers that each country submitted to cop21. In what way would they be harmful to the poorest of the world?
#1: At his blog “Not a lot of people know that”, Paul Homewood, has shown several of these climate action plans (known as an INDC – intended nationally determined contrbution) to be not what they seem. That’s not suprizing. When the UN couldn’t get agreement on a plan devised by the UN, they then asked for these country-estabilished plans. So folks made a plan that works best for them.
Anyway, go to the search box on Paul’s site and use INDC as the search term. On Nov. 9, there is one for South Africa; on the 8th Mexico; on the … scroll to the end of the text and see the next batch under the heading “Related.”
#2: Because these INDCs are written in the interest of the country doing the writing they would not be harmful to anyone.
What will be harmful is the sort of thing reported here:
cutting off funding for coal, etc.

#3: I rely on a refrigerator/freezer in my all electric home, so the following bright idea made me smile: Innovative Soccer Ball Doubles As Battery [look it up].

Reply to  jw
November 13, 2015 6:06 pm

We don’t deny climate change. The climate is changing and always has. Our argument is with those who, based on an unproveable conjecture, i.e.: all the warming that has taken place since the beginning of the industrial revolution is due to the increased anthropogenic CO2 level in the atmosphere. None of the warming is due to natural causes. Based on this conjecture and the available CO2/temperature data, models are built to “predict” global warming. The models are tweaked using parameterization factors to force a fit to the data. The models fail to predict. They fail to hindcast. The models are wrong. Case closed.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Trebla
November 13, 2015 6:24 pm

From AR5:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
So they almost say “all” in the last sentence, but not quite, and only since 1951, not the mid-19th century. Clearly, their best estimate is pure poppycock.
Earth cooled from c. 1945 to 1977, despite the rapid rise in CO2 levels during those decades, to such an extent that scientists worried about the next ice age.

richard verney
Reply to  Trebla
November 14, 2015 4:46 am

Gloateus Maximus
That use to be the position, say if in the 1990s, you looked at the thermometer record. However, there have since then been numerous adjustments to that record, the effect of which is gradually eroding the cooling to which you speak. It is now more like a pause, rather than cooling.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Trebla
November 14, 2015 5:39 am

James Hansen and the IPCC et el have “high jacked” all Holocene Interglacial Period increases in surface temperatures from 1880 to present and attributed said HIP temperature increases to the increase in human emissions of atmospheric CO2 in order to justify their “junk science” CAGW claims.
And that is exactly why they “got caught with their pants down” when the 18+ year “pause” in temperature was confirmed a reality. The CO2 has continued to increase but the HIP temperatures have not.

November 13, 2015 3:12 pm

OT but, multiple terror attacks occurring simultaneously throughout Paris, large number of dead, wounded, and hostages taken.
Two weeks ahead of COP meeting.
Reports of 6 separate attacks ongoing.
French borders closed, troops being dispatched throughout Paris.

November 13, 2015 3:46 pm

OK, jw hasn’t responded, so I’ll answer anyway. jw’s definition of ‘climate change’ is:
The rise in average global temperature due to human-created emissions
jw, so far there are no empirical, testable (meaning falsifiable), verifiable measurements quantifying AGW (anthropogenic global warming, or man-made global warming). Despite thousands of scientists searching over many decades, no such measurements exist (there are some indirect measurements, but nothing that all scientists agree on; far from it).
The first scientist who produces a verifiable measurement of AGW as a fraction of global warming from all sources (such as the planet’s recovery from the Little Ice Age) will surely get a Nobel Prize for his discovery. That’s a big carrot in the scientific community.
But since there are no widely agreed measurements of AGW among scientists, everything you have heard about it amounts to an opinion. That’s all. Even though I personally think AGW exists as a minuscule, 3rd-order forcing, that is just my opinion. Because there are no measurements quantifying AGW.
Science is all about data. Science requires data. Measurements are data.
But there are no measurements quantifying AGW. None.
So when you ask:
What is the motivation to deny climate change so vehemently?
It is clear that you’ve been listening to people who have opinions — but no measured data.
If you stick around here for a while, you will see what you are not seeing wherever it is your’re getting your bad information: you will see the other side of the debate.
Most people here (but not all) think there’s something to the AGW conjecture. The question is this: Is AGW a problem? And the corollary: if there is AGW, and if it causes global warming of, say, 2ºC, is that a problem, too? You know, a 2º warmer planet may be quite a bit more desirable than what we have now.
One issue with the climate alarmist crowd is their consistent refusal to discuss any cost/benefit analysis. If our curreent lifestyle is responsible for a rise in global T of say 0.7ºC, would people give up the benefits of “carbon” in order to reduce global T by 0.7º?
But they never discuss that. With the climate alarmist crowd, it’s always doom and gloom.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  dbstealey
November 13, 2015 4:16 pm

dbstealey — unfortunately the group that potraying global warming is climate change, let them read for the definition on a range of terms relating to climate and climate change from WMO [World Meteorological Organization] website.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

richard verney
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 14, 2015 2:13 am

You are right to point out that there is a misconception as to precisely what Climate is. Further, I consider that it is a fundamental error to view this over a period as short as 30 years. There is no scientific basis for considering a 30 year period relevant still less appropriate, and statistically considering that the planet is some 4.5 billion years old, and considering the length of ice ages, 30 years is a blink of the eye and meaningless for the purposes of extrapolation. .
See my comments above at richard verney November 14, 2015 at 1:41 am and richard verney November 14, 2015 at 1:51 am

P Barrett
Reply to  dbstealey
November 13, 2015 5:44 pm

they do most certainly discuss benefits.
benefits turn sharply into productivity losses where avg annual temp > 13 C. see the recent paper
“Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production”, Nature Clim Chg,

Reply to  P Barrett
November 13, 2015 8:16 pm

“benefits turn sharply into productivity losses where avg annual temp > 13 C. see the recent paper”
To what does that equate? A narrow band between 30-40 North and South? You mean little productivity elsewhere?

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  dbstealey
November 14, 2015 5:47 am

@ dbstealey – November 13, 2015 at 3:46 pm

Ron Richey
Reply to  dbstealey
November 14, 2015 7:55 am

What are the 3 most popular opinions of arguing for of AGW?
Ron Richey

Reply to  Ron Richey
November 14, 2015 10:17 am

Ron Richey says:
What are the 3 most popular opinions of arguing for of AGW?
If you can put that into a coherent question, I’ll try to answer.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 14, 2015 10:36 pm

Thanks to some of you for your answers.
“Science is all about data. Science requires data. Measurements are data.
But there are no measurements quantifying AGW. None.

It is clear that you’ve been listening to people who have opinions — but no measured data.”
If there is no measured data, then your side also has no data. This is one of the reasons why used “vehemently.” If this is so, we should be working together to agree on methodologies to generate this data. People seem to take this debate as serious as a religious fanatic. That makes sense for the “catastrophe” side, but the “anti-catastrophe” side, at least on this site, seems to be even more fanatical, though I’ve only read a few pages here. Thanks to those of you who seemed rational and thoughtful.
I will probably not revisit this page, so you do not have to spend the time responding. I’m incredibly busy.

Reply to  jw
November 15, 2015 3:13 am

JW~ Many of those who either comment here or post here or both, are ALL about the data. If you look back through the immense number of articles on this site you will find tons of measured data. Looking and reasoning From that data for yourself is all that Skeptics have ever asked of people.

Reply to  jw
November 15, 2015 10:19 am

jw writes: “If there is no measured data, then your side also has no data. ”
It’s true there isn’t much of any worth. Use of the paleo record to make assertions about “the warmest this” or “that” (month, year, etc.) expressed in degrees Centigrade is just silly for example; while there may arguably be some data, it’s almost certainly not precise enough to support claims that September 2015 was the warmest month ever recorded (by approximately .03 degrees). Sometimes it’s not a lack of data that’s the contention between camps, it’s the deliberate attempts to misrepresent the data that exists.
Actually, I think if you take some time to look at the criticisms you’ll see they’re most often focused on misuse of data, or assertions data exist when they don’t. To suggest critics of the AGW theory have an obligation to produce data that refutes misused or missing evidence presented as fact is hardly logical; in some cases not only does no information exist, none can exist, and that is the point. It’s simply unreasonable to think we will ever have access to measures of temperatures and atmospheric gas compositions precise at the levels currently claimed, which are probably summed up as +/- .1° Centigrade, 50 ppm CO₂, 1mm sea level and +/- 50 years. It’s important to recall that these are the precisions presented in the IPCC’s (and other’s) “projections” of what is to happen to the planet between now and 2100. Using the data we have available to today, it’s statistically impossible to make those predictions with anything resembling credibility, yet governments all over the world are taking them quite seriously.
So perhaps you’ll understand from this where the “vehemence” arises; these criticisms are patently obvious. There’s no scientific defense against them, it really hasn’t got anything to do with the theory of AGW, these are criticisms of the basic measurements used. It’s a methodological failure. Essentially, the people promoting the “theory” of AGW aren’t scientists, and that makes scientists upset.

Reply to  jw
November 15, 2015 10:48 am

I wrote: “It’s simply unreasonable to think we will ever have access to measures of temperatures and atmospheric gas compositions precise at the levels currently claimed”
Although I didn’t say it, this was in reference to historical measures predating 1980 or thereabouts. We do now have access to instruments with the precision necessary to make those claims, however we won’t have had enough time to make realistic projections based on them for at least 30 years and much of current experience with reconstructions based on the poor data we do have available suggests it may be more like 100 to 1000 years. We are, after all, discussing Climate not Weather.

Reply to  jw
November 15, 2015 11:42 am

jw says:
If there is no measured data, then your side also has no data.
Even though jw has skedaddled, other readers are interested, so…
…there is no measured data that quantifies AGW for one of two possible reasons:
First, it’s possible that AGW is so minuscule that it is not measurable. It is down in the noise, which as any metrology engineer can tell you, makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible to measure.
Second possibility: AGW simply does not exist.
Personally I think AGW exists, and the reason it has never been measured is because it is a minuscule, 3rd-order forcing that is swamped by 2nd-order forcings. Those are both swamped by 1st-order forcings (those forcing orders per published, peer reviewed author Willis Eschenbach).
That is why skeptics of the ‘dangerous AGW’ (DAGW) conjecture have no measurements: AGW is simply too tiny to measure. That does not make skeptics “vehement” or “fanatics”, it just makes us skeptical of claims that are not supported by data.
jw should keep in mind that skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. Science cannot progress without skepticism; the Scientific Method is based upon skepticism and verifiable, replicable, testable (falsifiable) data. In other words: measurements.
Climate alarmists, on the other hand, are the real fanatics: they keep sounding their false alarm, based on no more than their personal opinions.
Science has ben perverted by too much money, and politics. We should get back to basics:
“Without data, anyone who does anything is free to claim success.”
~ Angus Deaton
“To measure is to know.”
~ Lord Kelvin, Nobel Laureate, Physics, 1883
“In God we trust, all others bring data.”
~ W. Edwards Deming
Until verifiable measurements are produced quantifying AGW, everything claimed regarding the “climate change” scare is speculation.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 15, 2015 11:55 am

My personal favorite: “If you didn’t measure it, it didn’t happen” a quote I attribute to Tom Van Vleck.

November 13, 2015 3:50 pm

Canada’s CBC, mostly public funded but not a stand alone tax, seems to be in panic mode like the BBC. Used to be quality news but has gone down hill the last few years. They are posting a constant barrage of very biased climate articles leading upto the Paris carbon party. They also had very biased reporting leading to our last federal election. This reporting from them along with the other liberal left media I believe was instrumental to the conservatives getting tossed. This should be very disconcerting no matter ones political strip. Democracy is under siege from the liberal left media, the UN along with the climate BS

November 13, 2015 4:00 pm

The BBC has always been in the tank for any far left position.
Their recent insanity is just more of the same, maybe a little more unhinged than usual.

Scott Scarborough
November 13, 2015 4:55 pm

I measure temperatures all the time. It’s hard to get a consistent temperature in a 8 cubic foot chamber. I will personally guarantee that no one knows the average temperature of the earth between 1850 and 1900 to +/-1 deg. C let alone +/- 0.01 deg. C which would be needed to say that it has warmed 1.02 deg. C since then,

P Barrett
Reply to  Scott Scarborough
November 13, 2015 5:40 pm

the average of a large number of measurements has a much lower uncertainty than any of the individual measurements themselves — it’s reduced by 1/sqrt(number of stations).

Reply to  P Barrett
November 13, 2015 8:23 pm

And where 85% of the earth’s surface is not measured?

Martin A
Reply to  P Barrett
November 14, 2015 1:08 am

Er – making assumptions about the errors being independent, identically distributed, zero mean, etc….
But I thought it was dishonest of the Met Office to state 1.01 (+/- 0.11).
My school science teacher would not have tolerated my giving a result where the last digit was meaningless.

richard verney
Reply to  P Barrett
November 14, 2015 2:25 am

And we are not even making a comparison with the measurements made in 1880 or the 1930s.
if one wanted to make a comparison with 1880, one would have to use the measurements from only the stations that were used in assessing the 1880 temperatures. There were only about 300 stations used to take those measurements, and only about a dozen in the Southern hemisphere.
The temperature anomalies assessed over the last 30 years are not based upon the measurements taken at the sites which were used to compile the 1880 temperature anomaly.
Ditto, for the 1930s.
We are not comparing apples with apples so we have no idea what change 9if any at all0 there has been from 1880 to date, or from 1930s to date.
Given that the number of stations used and the there location and spatial coverage is a moveable feast throughout the thermometer data series, “the average of a large number of measurements” does not apply.
If you want to ascertain how the height of US males and how this has changed from 1880 to date, you do not get this by including say as from 1920s the height of Dutch males taken from measurements made in Holland, then adding in in 1940s the height of Finnish males as measured in Finland, and then including in 1960 the height of Scandinavian males as measured in Sweden, and from 1970 as measured in Norway etc. this type of data base, is meaningless and no reduction in errors is obtained from averaging larger and larger numbers.
As a basic requirement one needs an homogenous data set that has constant sampling throughout to detect whether any change has or has not taken place.

Reply to  Scott Scarborough
November 14, 2015 1:44 pm

No wonder you can’t get a temperature to within +/- 0.01 deg. C.
You are making the mistake of doing this in an 8′ chamber.
You forgot to follow the instructions for taking an SST in 1880.
First you need a wooden vessel riding the high seas in the South Atlantic. And now, you need a wooden bucket and a thermometer. Now picture leaning over the side watching your bucket plunging into the waters below…etc etc.
Now, picture Phil Jones trying to imagine exactly what you did by recreating it 100 years later so that he can interpret the exact temperature of the surface of the water at the point at which you carefully wrote it into a log in the cabin.
And THAT – is how you obtain +/- 0.01 deg. C. accuracy.
See? Simple!!

John Boles
November 13, 2015 5:07 pm

Interesting study – go to you tube and put in the search terms “climate change den!er” (but spell it properly) and then put them in order most recent at the top and scroll down and see how few views some of them have after weeks or months on there.

November 13, 2015 5:20 pm

It turns out that the natural and random stochastic component of surface temperature time series is not Brownian motion but a Hurst phenomenon that can generate what appears to us to be patterns because of long term memory and persistence i the data. Our instinct to look for patterns and seek explanations in terms of cause and effect can go wrong under these circumstances. The most recent patterns and trends that breached the +1C line may represent random stochastic behavior of nature and not a phenomenon of nature that requires an explanation.
Because persistence violates the iid condition for linear regression, the OLS trends used exclusively in the study of temperature trends are unstable and not reliable – and are easy to manipulate with slight adjustments to the temperature record. Robust tests of trends are helpful in such cases.

Reply to  Chaam Jamal
November 14, 2015 9:46 am

Chaam Jamal writes: “It turns out that the natural and random stochastic component of surface temperature time series is not Brownian motion but a Hurst phenomenon that can generate what appears to us to be patterns because of long term memory and persistence i[n] the data.”
Great references Chaam, thanks for mentioning these. I plan on using this method to take another look at the RSS data as soon as I can get to it. I wasn’t familiar with the Hurst phenomenon so learning how to apply the method will likely be a real benefit in future investigations. Coupled with the second paper on robust verification of OLS regression of time series data I believe this will be a powerful tool. I’m eager to see what comes from an analysis of the “hiatus” using the satellite series.

P Barrett
November 13, 2015 5:38 pm

from Richard Tol et al…..We estimate that, in 2005, US$2 to US$14 billion of the recorded annual losses could be attributable to climate change, 2 to 12% of that year’s normalized losses. We suggest that damages from tropical cyclones cannot be dismissed when evaluating the current and future costs of climate change and the expected benefits of mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Oct 19 ’15 doi:10.1038/ngeo2560

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  P Barrett
November 14, 2015 6:04 am

Iffen one gets paid to to estimate annual losses then that is what one does. They “estimate”.
And a “US$2 to US$14 billion estimate” is surely a great CYA estimate.

Mark T
November 13, 2015 6:26 pm

Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon about Y2k.
Dogbert :”The Creator of our universe works in mysterious ways, but he works in base 10 and he likes big round numbers.” (Paraphrased as I can’t exactly remember)

Gloateus Maximus
November 13, 2015 8:38 pm

HadCRU and the Met tamperature series is a work of anti-science fiction.
Since 1860, the world has possibly warmed by 0.6 degrees C, tops. In 1995, it was 0.55 and there has been little or no statistically significant warming since then. And even 20 years ago, the books were already cooked to begin with.

November 13, 2015 9:10 pm

And no one in Paris will mention the 35 billion barrel a year gorilla in the room…..only 1,655 billion barrels in known proven reserves, depletion in 47 years.
And they want to set carbon limits for the year 2100? Mother Nature has already set that limit a lot sooner than they think.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  AndyJ
November 14, 2015 6:43 am

The reason there is only 40 + years of reserves is because the oil companies only search until they have 40 years of reserves then they stop looking until the next time.

November 13, 2015 9:29 pm

Last winter was certainly well above average where I live, but so far during this Fall period it has been mostly nippy especially over the last several weeks. So much for the famed warming effects of this super El Nino. Eastern Siberia is also very frosty looking, as is Alaska. It looks like the end of the warming is nigh. My cats are certainly putting on heavy coats in anticipation of what lies ahead, as are other critters in the area…http://www.intellicast.com/Local/ObservationsSummary.aspx?location=USCA0307

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  goldminor
November 13, 2015 9:43 pm

I could do without a return to the frigid winters of the 1960s and ’70s. OK with me if they never come back. Not that one degree F or C would make that much difference, or even two degrees in the winter. I wouldn’t be able to distinguish -35 from -33 F.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
November 14, 2015 6:18 am

The State of Florida is adamantly against in further increase in CAGW “warming”.
A major percentage of their Budget Revenue depends upon the northern “snowbirds” $pending all or part of the winter months in Sunny Florida.

November 14, 2015 12:13 am

To much attention is being paid to the thermometer and what it shows apart from the fact that taking the temperature of the whole surface of the earth at any specific time and arriving at 1 figure is ridiculous .
A better approach would be if there is AGW and it is affecting the earth right now what is the evidence for this ie in what we actually “feel” “see” of what has been predicted by the warmists over the last 20 years or so.
1/ Are the seas rising ? Yes but very slowly and below “Normal” Not affecting any population on Earth.
2/ Do we feel hotter during “Hot” weather? . Nahh! not really , 1year is different to the next , Like “Normal”
Some places have “Heatwaves” which history shows are quite normal .
2A/ Do we feel “warmer” during winter : Yes , sometimes , up and down . Some winters very cold ,lots a frost, other winters not so cold ,just a few frosts, this winter very cold and also days were very cold , unusual !
3/ Are there mores storms,hurricanes,typhoons , tornados etc ?. No ! In fact they have dropped below “Normal” for the last 10 years or so.
4/Is the arctic or the Antarctic shrinking or melting ? Well the Arctic did for a while diminish but has come back and is just below “Normal” again. The Antarctic has actually got colder and grown in total Ice volume considerably .
5/Are polar bears dying out ? Hardly , they have tripled in number over the last 10-15 years and have actually become a tolerated pest in the arctic , especially to the oil companies .
6/ Has snow disappeared especially in England and central US as predicted ? No! , I wish , in fact over the last 4 winters snow has become a major problem to many cities and countries around the world and seems to be coming earlier and earlier every year and deeper and deeper .
7/ Are deserts increasing in area? No ! Quite the opposite , some say the increase in CO2 has actually decreased the size of some deserts around the world by allowing for more prolific plant growth .
8/ Are food crops becoming untenable in some areas ? No ! Same as for deserts , some scientists are saying that the earths plants may actually be “starving” for more CO2 , the CO2 level in our atmosphere maybe to low for optimum plant growth. The increase in CO2 concentration has pointed to this over the last 10 years or so with an increase in the rate of plant growth .
9/ Has the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere lead to any recognizable outcome that I can see and feel over the last 40 odd years . Only one I see or feel over my lifetime and that is slightly warmer winters (less frosts) since 1970 or so but that I think is slowly coming to a halt and now reversing , 2 winters ago we had 17 frosts , thats a lot for where I live . And again this winter was very different , cold , 10-12 frosts , but unusually very cold air during the day after a frost, usually after a frost the sun comes out and warms us up but no .

Martin A
November 14, 2015 12:57 am

9 November 2015 – Met Office data for 2015 so far shows that, for the first time, global mean temperature at the Earth’s surface is set to reach 1 °C above pre-industrial levels
For the first time ever? Really?

Bill Illis
November 14, 2015 1:58 am

The NOAA and the Met Office are rapidly losing whatever credibility they had left after their latest temperature adjustment.
I suggest we do not add to their credibility by accepting any of this 1.0C non-sense.
This is not based on thermometer readings but is strictly sourced from some suped-up adjustment algorithm database stored on a computer in a random office at the NCDC. You are not allowed in this room to see how this algorithm works. Your role is only to repeat the values it generates to as wide an audience as possible so that others continue to believe in and genuflect in front of the climate scientists and their out-of-date 1979 theory about global warming.

Gerry, England
November 14, 2015 3:26 am

I would question some of the points relating to the BBC made in the article. The BBC has become institutionally left wing over the last few decades. It is often described as the TV station for the Guardian newspaper – an uninformative, loss-making paper with declining copies and loved by the left for its ‘right on’ stance. The BBC probably buys more copies of the Guardian than anyone else and its news coverage seems to match the paper. Get seen with a copy of the Daily Mail at the BBC and you will most likely be escorted from the building.
As regards the licence – you only need one to watch or record broadcast tv. With the blurring of device capability, you can now watch catch-up services on your tv or from your tv box via an internet connection. Smart TVs are a form of PC now that function with no aerial or satellite connection. Licence chasers are not able to enter your property without a warrant from a court. Granting of these is extremely rare. It is a criminal offence not to have a licence if needed and you can be gaoled for non-payment of any fine if caught. Most people incriminate themselves by having the tv on and viewable when visited.

richard verney
Reply to  Gerry, England
November 14, 2015 4:41 am

The BBC also only use to advertise job vacancies in that paper.
Your 2nd para is a little unclear. The trigger is watching (or recording) TV (even if that is not BBC channel programme material) that is simultaneously being broadcast live over the airways. The device used to watch or record does not have to be a TV, it does not need to have any monitor.
How live is live is not clear, but probably there needs to be a time delay of many minutes, and perhaps even an hour or so. For example, if a football game is being streamed on some catch-up service, and you are watching the start of the game, whilst in real time over the air broadcast, the game is running towards its end, say it is in the 88th minute, the Authorities may still be able to claim that you are watching live broadcast material notwithstanding the time delay. I am unaware of any legal authority on the point.
As you say, most people incriminate themselves, and this is often by the answers that they give to the inspectors.
The licence fee should be withdrawn, and the BBC should become a subscription channel. People should be free to watch TV, without payment of any subscription charges, of channels that raise their revenue by advertising, or if one pays a cable/satellite provider for the cable/satellite channels.
It is morally wrong to force people to pay a political donation to a political party (and the BBC is a political party just not one that has been elected) that they do not endorse, and whose views they may strongly disagree with, possibly even finding them offensive.

Reply to  Gerry, England
November 14, 2015 11:10 pm

“Gerry, England
November 14, 2015 at 3:26 am
As regards the licence – you only need one to watch or record broadcast tv.”
Any LIVE broadcast, radio or TV. And has been since 1922. And now ANY device too. No need for a TV for the “law” to be applied. I used to tell ’em to poke it. Some 200,000 people are convicted each year for “licence evasion”, and some 1000 or so actually go to jail.

Martin A
November 14, 2015 4:23 am

Granting of these is ex Licence chasers are not able to enter your property without a warrant from a court. Granting of these is extremely rare.
That is not true. TV search warrants are granted automatically at the request of the TV licence company. I had a policeman and two TV licence gorrillas arrive on my doorstep, despite the TV licence people having told me I would not be bothered in future. (I had a collection of non-working 405 line TV’s – obsolete British TV standard.)
In the end they sent me a cheque of around £200 compensation. (not sure of the exact figure without looking it up back home)

Reply to  Martin A
November 14, 2015 11:04 pm

Its called a statutory right of entry. No warrant needed. Ester Ransen (Sp?) did an excellent skit on TV in her show in the 70’s.

richard verney
November 14, 2015 4:23 am

You omitted to point out the hockey stick rise in global terrorism brought about by rising CO2.
I can certainly see a dramatic increase in this post the 1970s and as you know, Climate scientists frequently confuse correlation with causation.
I am sorry if such a sarcastic comment is inappropriate in the light of the recent Paris attacks, but we all know that there are no limits to the demon CO2, and of course many have linked the rising tensions and fighting in the Middle East with Climate Change (one well known singer, Charlotte Church, holds the view that Climate change has caused the war in Syria and the mass exodus and migration from that country).

November 14, 2015 9:49 am

Yea , right .
We knew the global mean temperature to 0.03% accuracy a century and a half ago .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
November 14, 2015 10:38 am

I believe it’s fair to say we don’t even know it now, much less a century and a half ago. Putting a 1/100ths degree precision on a value like that is just absurd. Well, maybe 1/10ths is absurd, 1/100ths is downright offensive.
It’s really my biggest beef with the state of climate research, this radical overstatement of accuracy and precision, especially in data sets taken before the invention of the telegraph. Never mind the instruments weren’t calibrated and the scales were difficult to read, the data were aggregated using sailing ships and horse drawn carriages then manually transcribed by scriveners and clerks. There are all sorts of places errors can be made without even discussing the instruments used. It’s absolutely crazy to talk about .01 or even .1 degree precision. Completely unbelievable. I can’t understand why they make the claims, they discredit their work before they’re finished writing.
And then we have the paleo record…

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
November 14, 2015 2:05 pm

The painful truth is that, if they were honest then they’d admit that the realistic error bars are bigger than the warming that they show since then.
But that would be too painful an admission so they go on ignoring massive sources of potential systematic errors. Ignoring some simply because they are in the unknown unknown category. Especially in relation to 19th century SST’s. It’s a massive guessing game. Who did what, when, where with what. Like a very boring murder/mystery. In which you have to infill much of the events due to poor coverage!!!

richard verney
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
November 15, 2015 8:41 am

We certainly do not know the average temperature of this planet to +/- 1 degC. It probably could be anything between 13 to 17 degC.
But even the land based thermometer anomaly data set is useless since it is composed of data from a continually altering data set, so that one is never, at any given time, comparing apples with apples. in the 1880s there were only a few hundred stations which were used to collect data, in the 1960s this peaked at somewhat less than 6,000, and today there are approximately 2,500 stations being used to compile the anomaly period..
When one looks at this data set, one is not assessing how the anomaly as from 1880 has changed, since we are not today using the precise same weather monitoring stations as the source of data that was used to compile the 1880 figure. We are not today making a comparison between the 1880 station data.
It is akin to trying to ascertain whether there has been any change in the height of US males by looking at their average height as obtained from measurements taken in 1880 in the USA, and then adding in say Dutch men as measured in Holland in 1920, then German men as measured in Germany in 1940, and then adding in Scandinavian men as measured in Sweden 1960 and Adding in Norwegian men measured in Norway in 1980, and then in 2000 getting rid of all the measurements of Scandinavian men, but including the measurements of Italian men measured in Italy.
A data set that is based upon such a movable feast of underlying observational data, is useless since no comparison is being made with changes occurring from the same observational data set. It is not at all scientific, and is wholly meaningless for reasons which Richard Courtney often explains.

Reply to  richard verney
November 15, 2015 7:45 pm

I feel the same. I am deeply suspicious of the comfort that some seem to obtain by applying complex analytical technique to a variety of data set with unknown systematic bias.
Without any reference point. Without any calibration then we don’t know what these old station data sets and SST records are telling us.
So many assumptions have been stacked up over time.
The assumptions now seem to lie hidden behind a vast edifice of illusory statistical precision.
I’m especially bothered by the assumptions that went into bucket SST analysis.
I was genuinely shocked when I went back and read the contents some of the early papers on SST’s and SST error assessments. It seemed like craziness to suggest that anything vaguely like 1 degree accuracy could be pulled out of that particular mess!!!
Most of the public have no idea just how flimsy this whole thing is.

November 15, 2015 2:06 am

From the article:
“So why does the BBC, which was once the gold standard for honest reporting, stoop to what is in my opinion such sloppy partisanship?”
My parents during WWII in Holland (as many did in those days all over occupied Europe) told me how they “staked their lives” on the BBC.
What the heck happened?

Gary Pearse
November 15, 2015 7:39 am

Anyone know if the Central England Temperature record is having its modern period jacked up by the Met Office or are they just leaving it as a heritage, un”homogenized data set? It would be a terrible tragedy if they are fiddling with it. It would be like painting a wristwatch and diamond earings on the Mona Lisa. For such a venerable series, there should be a court officer or independent, non British observer to validate the readings.

richard verney
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 15, 2015 8:23 am

Tonyb (Climatereason) is the man to ask. He is an expert on CET and is making a reconstruction of it based upon historical records. From some of his comments, I gain the impression that whilst there are some homogenisation/adjustments to the series, these appear more reasonable, and do not particularly concern him. But that is just my recollection and impression.
he posted an interesting article on Dr Curry’s blog some years ago. This is well worth a read in which he notes that there is a warming trend in CET going back to 1658.
See: http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
I recall from his reconstruction, and from historical record, that the warmest decade in Central England (not including the MWP) is the 1530s/40s, and I recall making a comment to him, some years back, noting that when I watched the Tudors (it was a repeat of a series that ran for 4 series between 2007 & 2010) covering the short marriage between King Henry VIII to Catherine Howard, it was historically accurate in that it included some scenes depicting how unbearably hot it was, and without rain. I recall that there was a scene where Catherine Howard and her ladies in waiting dance in the rain, and splash around in the mud when the rains finally come (this was 1540 or 1541; she was executed in early 1542)..
He has some wider reconstructions of data from a much larger area, which again is well worth looking at.
See: http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
One cannot begin to understand Climate until one gets a proper perspective of what the Climate of a region is not over some short arbitrary period such as 30 years but rather over centennial, or multicentenial period. Since there is strong evidence of a ~1000 year cycle, possibly over millennia. I have made a number of comments above about Climate and what this is and you might like to have a quick look at them

November 15, 2015 11:07 am

If you started counting about 15,000 years ago when my Michigan USA property was under a mile or two of ice, is it not true that there has already been well OVER 2 degrees C. of warming (perhaps +6 to +10 degrees C.? … which melted a lot of the ice … and now I can get around the neighborhood without ice skates.

Michael Spurrier
November 16, 2015 12:06 am
James at 48
November 16, 2015 10:48 am

Subtract out the non-GHG radiative imbalance component and it makes things interesting. I’d be quite surprised if the actual GHG radiative imbalance component ever exceeds 2 deg C. It may not even exceed 1.5 deg C when all is said and done. At some point the GHG radiative imbalance component will peak and start to decline. Eventually a noise floor will be reached where all remaining warming is other non-GHG radiative imbalance components. With peak population having been reached and barring further significant increases in surface/near surface thermal flux, albedo mods, etc, even that noise floor will begin to decrease along with population. Then, Mother Nature takes over again. End of Interglacial, here we come!

%d bloggers like this: