24 days to Al Gore's '10 years to save the planet' and 'point of no return' planetary emergency deadline

From the “say your prayers, we’re gonna roast” department.

gore-sundance-2006

On January 25th, 2006, while at the Sundance film festival, screening “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore said this as chronicled in an article by CBS News:

The former vice president came to town for the premiere of “An Inconvenient Truth,” a documentary chronicling what has become his crusade since losing the 2000 presidential election: Educating the masses that global warming is about to toast our ecology and our way of life.

Gore has been saying it for decades, since a college class in the 1960s convinced him that greenhouse gases from oil, coal and other carbon emissions were trapping the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a glacial meltdown that could flood much of the planet.

Americans have been hearing it for decades, wavering between belief and skepticism that it all may just be a natural part of Earth’s cyclical warming and cooling phases.

And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.

He sees the situation as “a true planetary emergency.”

“If you accept the truth of that, then nothing else really matters that much,” Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We have to organize quickly to come up with a coherent and really strong response, and that’s what I’m devoting myself to.”

Well, the 10 years are about up, by now, warming should have reached “planetary emergency levels” Let’s look at the data:

Satellite data since 1979:

UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2015_v6

As you can see, little has changed since 2006. Note the spike in 1998, in the 18 years since the great El Niño of 97/98, that hasn’t been matched, and the current one we are in isn’t stronger, and looks to be on the way to decaying. So much for the “monster” El Niño.

Dr. John Christy recently wrote of the satellite record since 1979:

While a 0.12 C trend isn’t exactly a sprint to climate catastrophe (the 1.2 C or 2.2 degrees F rise over 100 years would be roughly equal to the warming seen most spring days between 10 a.m. and noon), it nonetheless has been a steady trend for the past several years. Take away the random variations caused by warm and cold weather systems, and any long-term trend, no matter how small, will produce climate records on a regular basis. Add to that long-term warming the additional heat of a large El Niño, and record-setting monthly average temperatures should be both routine and expected.

Despite that, early indications are that 2015 will end as the third warmest year in the satellite temperature record, behind 1998 and 2010. That is the early indication. Typically, the warmest temperatures are seen in the second year of an El Niño warming event, although there have been exceptions. If the typical pattern holds true, the second year of the current El Niño would be expected to bring more record high temperatures in 2016, perhaps including a new record high temperature for the year.

The fastest warming place on Earth over the past 37 years has been in the Arctic Ocean north of the Svalbard archipelago, where temperatures have been rising 0.5 C (about 0.9 degrees F) per decade. The fastest cooling spot was over the eastern Antarctic near Dome C. Temperatures there have been falling at the rate of 0.41 C (about 0.74 degrees F) per decade.

UAH-Dec78_Nov15_LT_trend
Warmer at the North pole, colder at the South pole since 1979. Source: UAH

The surface record for the last 10 years:

Global surface temperature from Jan. 2006 to Nov. 2015
Global surface temperature from Jan. 2006 to Nov. 2015

Source: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2006/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2006/trend

Of course, proponents of climatic catastrophe will look at that and say “Gore was right!” …except there is this small niggling problem, a fairly large El Niño in 2015, which has nothing to do with CO2 induced warming as Gore claimed ten years ago. Note the spike in 2007, in the nine years since, that hasn’t been matched.

The real point here is to note that, no matter whether you are looking at the satellite record or the surface temperature record, is that the temperature hasn’t risen dramatically in the last 10 years, and the dramatic spikes we see in the surface and satellite temperature records correspond to a natural event that’s been going on for millennia;  El Niño.

According to Gore, this map should have been all reds now.

2015-CFS-T2m-global-temperature-anomaly-768x576

In a recent post about why El Nino drive global temperatures, Dr. Roy Spencer wrote this: What Causes El Nino Warmth?

Dick Lindzen suggested to me recently that this might be a good time to address the general question, “what causes the global-average warmth during El Nino?”

Some of you might say, “the sun, of course”. Yes, the sun’s energy is the ultimate source of energy for the climate system, but it really doesn’t explain why El Nino years are unusually warm…or why La Nina years are unusually cool.

The answer lies in the circulation of the Pacific Ocean, more specifically the vertical circulation of that ocean basin.

The short answer is that, during El Nino, there is an average decrease in the vertical overturning and mixing of cold, deep ocean waters with solar-heated warm surface waters. The result is that the surface waters become warmer than average, and deeper waters become colder than average. The opposite situation occurs during La Nina.

Importantly, the change shows up in global average ocean computations, based upon ocean temperature data (see our Fig. 3, here); this means that the changes centered in the Pacific are not offset by changes of the opposite sign occurring in other ocean basins.

So, the big warming events of the last 10 years have been El Niño related, a natural event, and even they haven’t reached catastrophic levels of global temperature.

Al Gore’s posited “within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and “a true planetary emergency.” is proving to be nothing more than PR bullshit to push his movie, and won’t happen by the ten year countdown of January 25th 2016.

al-gore-countdown-clock
Source: rushlimbaugh.com

Gaia seems to be a “Gore denier”. How inconvenient.

 

[Moderator’s Note:  Most replies on this thread will trip our WordPress’s “automatic audit/automatic moderator queue” trigger.  Be patient, all replies will be read and checked in per the usual policies.  You will not see your own reply until the checkoff is finished.  .mod]


Note: within a few minutes of publication this post was updated to fix a formatting error, a source for the countdown graphic, and a repeated phrase on temperature, and fix of the date of the 10 year anniversary from 2015 to 2016

0 0 vote
Article Rating
531 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
skeohane
January 2, 2016 8:26 am

I guess I should appreciate the inconvenient truth that AIT exposed a moronic take on climate I would have never guessed existed otherwise. Thank you Al.

Reply to  skeohane
January 2, 2016 11:27 am

Humanity may be obliterated by some natural phenomenon, it could even be global warming. But not due to anything remotely credited to Al Gore. The man is a farce.

Jude
Reply to  William Konrad (@kondore26)
January 2, 2016 12:05 pm

Am far more concerned about a small asteroid hitting the earth than the world temp going up 1 degree over the next 80 years per Gore and the media’s global warming scam.

Goldrider
Reply to  William Konrad (@kondore26)
January 2, 2016 12:29 pm

Operative words: “after he lost the 2000 election.”

Joinamerica
Reply to  William Konrad (@kondore26)
January 2, 2016 1:05 pm

Mr. Gore has made about a BILLION dollars from his cap & trade scam. (And many millions from selling his television network to Al Jazeera.)

Reply to  William Konrad (@kondore26)
January 2, 2016 1:24 pm

(Please re-post, but without the 4-letter words. Thanks. ~mod.)

Steve Herman
Reply to  William Konrad (@kondore26)
January 2, 2016 7:10 pm

Man is too weak to be the cause of global warming or cooling or whatever the next “science” hype is.
Global Warming purpose is to separate the Middle Class from it’s money, sponsored and promoted by the US Government, BUT derailed by Common Sense! Don’t need to be a math whiz to use common sense.

HopesDad
Reply to  William Konrad (@kondore26)
January 2, 2016 8:43 pm

I suspect we’re FAR more likely to be obliterated by an asteroid or comet strike than by anything Gore claims. The reality is that we’re in an “interglacial” period between ice ages (the last major ice age ended roughly 12,000 years ago.) The next ice age is likely a few thousand years in the future, but is apparently inevitable. We are currently in a normal cycle and actually saw warmer temperatures and worse droughts in the early 1930s. In the article it indicates Gore claimed he “learned” about greenhouse gasses and global warming in the 1960s. The problem with that is that, at that time, the radicals were claiming we were headed for global COOLING. The theories on greenhousing based on gasses are based on data from Venus probes and wasn’t even developed until the late 70s and early 80s.

empiresentry
Reply to  William Konrad (@kondore26)
January 2, 2016 10:26 pm

scary scary…Al Gore is scary.
Scary that dems can so easily latch onto a populist rumor, destroy science and run us into the ground.
I know!!! Lets all go down to the Maya temples and hold crop circle fertility chants to stop the horrible things he made so much money off of. (sarc/off in case nobody noticed?)

Peter Sable
Reply to  William Konrad (@kondore26)
January 2, 2016 11:39 pm

Humanity may be obliterated by some natural phenomenon, it could even be global warming. But not due to anything remotely credited to Al Gore. The man is a farce.
Humanity will be obliterated by our own blind trust in authority. That’s the record so far at least.

George Lawson
Reply to  William Konrad (@kondore26)
January 4, 2016 4:27 am

Al Gore should be brought to trial for his part in the promotion of the global warming farce that was based on false evidence in order to line his own pockets with millions of dollars, and for the resultant un calculable cost to world economies, and for his part in making the world’s poor a lot worse off.

Reply to  skeohane
January 2, 2016 12:27 pm

When ENRON collapsed, Al Gore instructed his Goons
to retrieve the Carbon Credit Fraud Business plan from
ENRON Before DOJ gets there.
He makes money from it TODAY ! ! !
And the INTELLIGENTSIA continues to “BELIEVE” it is TRUE.
.

gene
Reply to  H.d. Rennerfeldt
January 3, 2016 1:27 am

you are an idiot

ian m
Reply to  skeohane
January 2, 2016 5:28 pm

Just wondering which “oracles” are still intact ?
Land temperature accuracy just took a big hit thanks to Anthony
NOAA are being sued for non release of their records which are likely to have been altered
The tree ring circus used only “good” trees or were they actually the “bad” trees ?
Just a guy wondering what to believe ?

firstriverbend
Reply to  ian m
January 3, 2016 4:46 pm

The “tree ring circus”, used only three trees from one location.
Not possible to make a statistical representation from such a small sample, but in fact the entire “hockey stick graph”, is based on this heavily flawed data!!
So good catch. 🙂

David L. Hagen
January 2, 2016 8:30 am

Could “anthropogenic global warming” have compensated for/prevented “most” of the global cooling for the last 18 years 9 months?
Can we then have hope that we might be able to reverse the projected increasing rate of cooling towards the next glaciation? I am more concerned over the damage of a 1000 ft thick glacier grinding back through Canada into the USA than 1 ft higher sea level.

TRM
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 2, 2016 10:15 am

While a nice thought and I agree on preference that you have I doubt any amount of CO2 will prevent the glaciation from resuming. The only hope to do that (IMHO) would be to geo-engineer an opening between Panama and South America to the Pacific could flow into the Atlantic again as it did 3+ million years ago before we entered (and still haven’t left) the ice age.

Reply to  TRM
January 2, 2016 10:36 am

no wonder I’m always cold… just wish there were some Mammoths to hunt… 🙂

ferdberple
Reply to  TRM
January 2, 2016 10:57 am

Look at NOAA own data below. High CO2 causes temperatures to FALL, not rise.comment image

schm0e
Reply to  TRM
January 2, 2016 11:18 am

— Are you certain that cold temperatures do not cause the production of greater amounts of CO2?

BruddahNui
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 2, 2016 12:35 pm

No. AGW is a failed God. CO2 doe’s nothing to slow an ice age mini are full. CO2 doe’s not warm the planet as witnessed by ice core samples and more going back millions of years.

Brian H
Reply to  BruddahNui
January 2, 2016 4:58 pm

does
no apostrophes

paul oman
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 2, 2016 4:03 pm

so right – planet cooling much worse than warming for mankind

January 2, 2016 8:32 am

Who here can say with 100% certainty, or even 95%, that sea level will not rise many feet in the next 24 days, and Wall Street bankers will soon be taking gondolas to work instead of ordinary taxis?
No one can say, because predicting the future climate is impossible.
I have discovered the main cause of global warming, however:
— The more face time Al Gore has on TV, and the more he speaks publicly about climate change, the warmer it gets.
— His “hot air” is the primary source of global warming, not the sun.
— The “pause” since the early 2000s was caused by Gore spending too much time making money, and eating at all-you-can-eat-buffets …. leaving little time for making tedious public speeches about climate change.
I want to thank Al Gore for getting me interested in climate change in the late 1990s. When he wrote a book pretending to be a “scientist”, I knew immediately the coming climate change catastrophe was a leftist scam.

CodeTech
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 9:01 am

I can say with certainty that sea level will not rise many feet in the next 24 days, barring some unforeseen catastrophic event.
And hey, the al-Gore effect defines increasing cooling and heavy snow whenever he’s most wound up about warming.
al-Gore has done an immeasurable amount of good for the Right, more than he could have done if he wasn’t a “progressive” imbecile. We now have a certifiable nut case that we can point to whenever required.

Khan David
Reply to  CodeTech
January 2, 2016 1:30 pm

It’s all fear-porn from the Left. Al Gore is their prophet, and his apocalyptic prophecies have failed to come to pass. Another prophet from NASA predicted last year that California would run out of water by April. I think we should hold him to that, too.

Reply to  CodeTech
January 2, 2016 4:29 pm

@ Khan David…the current northern California snowpack is around 130% of normal as of now. This winter will take the edge off of the drought, and next year’s winter will most likely end the drought.

Reply to  CodeTech
January 2, 2016 6:03 pm

“It’s all fear-porn from the Left. Al Gore is their prophet,”
Gore is a Democrat. That makes him more right-wing than the British Conservative Party, though perhaps not as right-wing as the Republican Party.
This whole AGW scam was originally promoted by right-wing politicians (Thatcher and Gore) and big money shufflers. It really saddens me to see that some of the very few real left-wingers still around have been sucked into it.

Russell
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 9:18 am

The Health Care and Pharmaceutical Industries., wants to thank Sen., Al Gore,s father for making them all extremely rich. The great Cholesterol Hoax in the 1960,s. go to minute 26 of video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRe9z32NZHY

TRM
Reply to  Russell
January 2, 2016 10:23 am

Dr Dzugan has over 80% success rate in returning people to the reference range and those that don’t still improve dramatically so in reality close to 100% improve. He doesn’t use statin based drugs. His idea, that seems to be borne out by experiments, is that the body loses the ability to convert cholesterol to hormones so the body detects low hormones and tries to adjust by providing more cholesterol. He adjusts the body’s hormone levels and the body stops overproducing cholesterol.
http://www.lifeextension.com/vitamins-supplements/item33852/The-Magic-of-Cholesterol-Numbers

Logicprobe
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 9:19 am

How dare you! Al is not, like, “pretending”. I mean, like, he, you know, invented the Internet and all…

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 9:23 am

“Who here can say with 100% certainty, or even 95%, that sea level will not rise many feet in the next 24 days, and Wall Street bankers will soon be taking gondolas to work instead of ordinary taxis?”
Actually, it can be said with near certainty that this will not happen, and if it does, it totally disproves the whole global warming theory anyway. Even Michael Mann’s hockey stick did not have a 24 day jump in it. No one can predict with 100% certainty the climate in the next 24 days, but we can say with near certainty that the quoted prediction will not be true. Using a highly improbable outcome to try and demonstrate that no one can predict climate with high certainty is not helping the skeptic cause. It just makes you look uninformed and reactionary.

BruddahNui
Reply to  Reality check
January 2, 2016 10:27 am

Blah, blah, blah said the scared little sheep

Reply to  Reality check
January 2, 2016 10:40 am

Not having a sense of humor makes you a dull “scientist”.
The future is not predictable.
Whether 24 days, 24 months, 24 years, or 24 centuries in the future.
I suppose the BEST way to help the “skeptic cause”, as you call it, it to ignore OBVIOUS humor in a post, and character attack a fellow skeptic — that will REALLY help the “skeptic cause”.

AJ Lamm
Reply to  Reality check
January 2, 2016 4:51 pm

What happens to water when it freezes? It expands, right? So if the glaciers melt all the volume of the ice is reduced and the oceans will sink not rise. Fill a glass with ice and see what happens when it melts.

Reply to  AJ Lamm
January 2, 2016 7:02 pm

AJ Lamm-“What happens to water when it freezes? It expands, right? So if the glaciers melt all the volume of the ice is reduced and the oceans will sink not rise. Fill a glass with ice and see what happens when it melts.”
Please, oh please, for the love of all things, tell me you just left off the “sarc” tag!

James Ignacious
Reply to  Reality check
January 2, 2016 6:35 pm

Icebergs displace their volume floating in water unlike glaciers which move over land masses so that ice cubes floating in a glass of water example makes no sense

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 9:28 am

Yes indeed, we owe Mr Gore so much – above all for the humor that his life and career have injected into American life.

Bruno Braun
Reply to  Carefree Arizona
January 2, 2016 12:18 pm

But he has given crazed poodles a bad name.

NW sage
Reply to  Carefree Arizona
January 2, 2016 3:45 pm

After all All Gore is to Global Warming as Bagdad Bob was to Iraq. ipso facto

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Carefree Arizona
January 3, 2016 12:03 am

Maybe so, but Gore is not so funny every quarter when I have to pay income taxes.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 11:10 am

Actually it is easy… first for the sea to rise requires an increase in volume (or a 1000 magnitude increase in the Moon’s gravity (which would cause other problems). This increase on volume would have to come from melting ice and would average out over the entire nautical surface. So either it melts in 24 days (impossible unless you unleash 1000 nuc’s on the ice) or it doesn’t. BTW… ice has a greater volume than water… oh least I forget… there may not be enough ice on Earth to cause such a rise.

Hivemind
Reply to  Jim Thompson
January 2, 2016 8:16 pm

You forgot an ice asteroid hitting the Earth. That would do it too…

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 11:16 am

Absolutely BRILLIANT! TY for the chuckles! 🙂

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 11:41 am

I also want to see Al, baby, downsize into a smaller home like we did. I am sure he lives in some mega-thousand square foot home that slurps up way too much non-renewable energy as well as the earth robbing materials that went into building the home. Also, what kind of transportation does he take- private jets, big non-efficient cars? He may be conserving, but I think his footprint could be re-examined and downsized. We are doing our part for the planet as best we can. I have not read anything about his personal efforts, but these are some of the thoughts I have concerning the former Veep.

Jestershark
Reply to  Deana Maclean-Roberts
January 2, 2016 6:07 pm

Maybe he could just live on his houseboat. The one that runs on biodiesel and solar panels but still needs to be plugged in.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Deana Maclean-Roberts
January 3, 2016 7:38 am

Al Gore lives in multiple multi-thousand square foot homes.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 11:42 am

play it again! so right !!

John
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 11:54 am

Just proves it is a good thing, that this fruitcake Al Bore wasn’t elected president. No telling what he would have done to our country, that Obozo didn’t do.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  John
January 2, 2016 12:26 pm

“…that Obozo didn’t do.”
And that would be what, exactly?

Reply to  John
January 2, 2016 1:34 pm

jorgekaflazar where have you been these past 7 years, take your head out of your arse.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  John
January 2, 2016 5:53 pm

John
Interesting question. Would Al Gore have been a worse president than O’Bummer? Historians will be debating that question for hundreds of years. Whose core beliefs are further removed from historical experiece — Al Gore or O’Bummer? Which one more efficient at trashing the system and destroying American values? To sum it all up — which one is the bigger space cadet?
Eugene WR Gallun

James the Elder
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 2, 2016 1:09 pm

Watch a movie about CO2 in the ’60s?
1: I thought we were just entering the global COOLING scare around that time.
2: Did divinity schools teach climatology back then?
3: I remember being at VA Tech in 65-66; it was as cold as a witch’s teat with snowdrifts up to 20 feet in places. I dropped out.
Forrest Gore has more intelligence.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  James the Elder
January 2, 2016 4:43 pm

As is often the case with the left, their consciences are rarely bothered by making up ‘facts’ to embellish a story that supports their ideology.

Reply to  James the Elder
January 2, 2016 5:59 pm

“Gore has been saying it for decades, since a college class in the 1960s convinced him that greenhouse gases from oil, coal and other carbon emissions were trapping the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a glacial meltdown that could flood much of the planet.”
Where did you get “a movie” out of that?

Thomas Edwardson
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 4, 2016 9:32 am

“Who here can say with 100% certainty, or even 95%, that sea level will not rise many feet in the next 24 days, and Wall Street bankers will soon be taking gondolas to work instead of ordinary taxis?”
I can say with at least 95% confidence that it will not be Gondolas.
If I remember correctly, there are only a handful of Squerarioli in Venice still building the gondolas today. With each boat requiring about a dozen species of wood (some of which require a year’s preparation time), individual boat build times measured in months, and price tags north of $60 USD, it will take considerably longer than 24 days to construct the necessary fleet. Current Venetian production is barely meeting the replacement needs of the dwindling fleet (+400 boats). The gondolas have asymmetric hulls to resist the turning moment of the single starboard mounted sculling oar and are built from eye, memory and rules of thumb (no plans, no half models), so it is doubtful that other wooden boat builders could ramp up production to fill the need. The boats are kept in the families that own them and handed down from father to son as a way of life, so it is doubtful that a significant percentage of the existing fleet could be purchased and relocated to the other side of the pond in the required 24 days. Besides, I doubt that Wall Street bankers have the temperament to spend the time required for the gondolier to scull the boat along at a stately 3 knot velocity for any distance.

Gloateus Maximus
January 2, 2016 8:33 am

Mother Nature has bitch slapped the blubbery fool masher mercilessly.

Menicholas
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
January 3, 2016 6:18 pm

*uncontrollable roar of laughter in spite of myself*

stephana
January 2, 2016 8:34 am

Back in the old days when video stores existed it was great fun to scoop up the poop called an Inconvenient truth and move them all to the fiction section. Sure looks like time has proven me right after all these years.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  stephana
January 2, 2016 8:40 am

Or the New Age religion section. Fat Albert was a divinity school drop out, after all.

Jeff (FL)
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
January 2, 2016 11:43 am

How on Earth do you achieve that? 🙂

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
January 2, 2016 11:57 am

Hey, hey, hey; I love Fat Albert…. Oh, I guess you aren’t talking about the cartoon series

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
January 2, 2016 4:48 pm

I think big Al achieved dropout status after turning on to MJ, but some historical biographer will have to fill in the details.

Rob
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
January 2, 2016 5:43 pm

Unless I’m in error AL BORE, took a total of 1 science class while in college. His grade….a “D”
And for this he is an expert….God Help us !!

Reply to  stephana
January 2, 2016 9:23 am

I love it!

Reply to  stephana
January 2, 2016 6:01 pm

Did you have to dust them first?

Bubba Cow
January 2, 2016 8:39 am

“Warmth the polar bears now love” – priceless

Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 2, 2016 9:38 am

My favorite line of the entire article!

Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 2, 2016 12:48 pm

It caught my eye also. Priceless!

AndyG55
Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 2, 2016 2:00 pm

This guy certainly looks happy.comment image

RD
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2016 7:46 pm

Beautiful animals! I’m glad he is thriving!

January 2, 2016 8:44 am

I at least have the pride I did not vote for that puppy. It was for other reasons, but anyone who could fail as a a theology major would seem to be a bad fit as a secular prophet.

jack maples
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 2, 2016 2:48 pm

if gore had carried tennessee, his nominal home state, he would’ve been elected. thankfully, the people of the volunteer state had seen enough of him to know he is an elitest fraud. history will judge him poorly.

JustAnOldGuy
Reply to  jack maples
January 3, 2016 2:40 am

Although Tennessee has several metropolitan areas the state is primarily rural and thus focused on agriculture. One thing folks from the country readily recognize is the waste product from male cattle. He didn’t stand a chance. I do wish Monckton would include this observation with his frequent mentions of Al’s home state.

Chris
Reply to  jack maples
January 4, 2016 12:14 pm

Jack Maples, yeah, because Bush was such a great President. Two unfunded wars and the worse recession since the Great Depression.

Reply to  Chris
January 4, 2016 12:23 pm

I see that Chris doesn’t accept the Business Cycle…

Reply to  dbstealey
January 4, 2016 12:39 pm

Arguably, the last year of Carter and the first two years of Reagan were worse–it is the recovery from this recession that was worse.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Watts Up With That? wrote:
> dbstealey commented: “I see that Chris doesn’t accept the Business > Cycle…”

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 2, 2016 7:37 pm

Theology is not a soft option, at least not here. You are expected to do at least Greek or Hebrew. You are likely to have to take at least one paper on another religion. You have to do a fair bit of history. You have to study interpretation, which amongst other things is supposed to teach you not to imagine that *your* interpretation is the full and final one. (This could be said of most of the papers, actually.) Even the papers that wouldn’t challenge me look like a lot of work. As far as I can see, there aren’t *any* papers that would prepare you to be a secular prophet, except possibly http://www.otago.ac.nz/theology/study/papers/index.html?papercode=PAST311#2016 which is not being offered this year. I remember believing that “An Inconvenient Truth” was sincere, if wrong; I wish I could still believe that.

Latitude
January 2, 2016 8:46 am

mod – “According to Gore, this map should have been a reds now.”

January 2, 2016 8:56 am

Despite that, early indications are that 2015 will end as the third warmest year in the satellite temperature record, behind 1998 and 2010. That is the early indication.

RSS for December is out and this is indeed the case for RSS.
RSS for December has just come in at 0.543. This is the warmest December in the relatively short satellite record, however 0.543 was beaten in the first 8 months of 1998 and for 4 months in 2010. The 2015 average is 0.358, putting 2015 in third place as Bob mentioned behind 0.550 from 1998 and 0.468 from 2010.
The pause has decreased by one month to 18 years and 8 months. Now, the pause goes from May 1997 to December 2015.
This month, the start date for the pause jumped by two months to May. The huge question now is whether or not the anomalies will drop to 0.24 before the start month reaches December 1997.

Reply to  Werner Brozek
January 2, 2016 9:07 am

Bullshi*. It’s an out and out FRAUD and shear arrogance of anyone living to try and predict weather. Perfect example is Al Bore. Sad thing is the younger generations are purposely dumbed down so much, they believe all this crap. Someday, the truth will unfold and all the fraudsters and hacksters hopefully will get the same punishment the Saudis have recently dished out to the terrorists………………

Brian H
Reply to  Brad Michael Tankersley
January 2, 2016 5:05 pm

sheer
No wool-trimming involved.

Tony
Reply to  Brad Michael Tankersley
January 8, 2016 7:31 am

All of the old liars will have to die off before truth will make a come back. Hope they haven’t the offspring to keep perpetuating it.

Drifter
Reply to  Werner Brozek
January 2, 2016 9:51 am

Warmer Huh? All they have to dois continue to use the FAKE warming reports they already have. This whole thing is take down the USA, make al gore richer and impoverish (enslave) the rest of us.I haven’t seen this much balderdash since I cleaned out the daily barns.

Convenient Fraud.
Reply to  Werner Brozek
January 2, 2016 11:15 am

You are very good at copying/pasting propaganda that you neither understand nor research. A perfect useful idiot minion used by the puppetmasters of the left.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Convenient Fraud.
January 3, 2016 2:11 am

neither understand nor research

Did you? Put up.

January 2, 2016 9:04 am

Global surface temperature from Jan. 2006 to Nov. 2015

Hadcrut4 actually has not appeared on WFT since May when a new version came out. I really wish they would update things! As well, only UAH5.6 appears and not UAH6.0beta4.
If you want the latest, you must go to:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html

Joe E in the IE
January 2, 2016 9:10 am

So, Al, you gonna sell the private jets, trade the armored limos for a Prius, auction off the mansions and estates and live in an energy-efficient single-family home?
Yes, I see, and no, you can’t do THAT to me or the horse I rode in on. I don’t even own a horse.

gnomish
Reply to  Joe E in the IE
January 2, 2016 2:39 pm

sure he will-
when you stop voting for your masters and you stop paying your tithes to your particular religion of peace.
they won’t stop swilling till you stop filling.
who’s the fountainhead of self destruction, really?
so al likes to peddle climate fear pr0n.
you didn’t have to buy any.
you once had a choice.
there is no al gore without such as thou who art precisely, exactly, flipsides of one coin.
so sure- poke at al for hypocrisy – it’s the only way you can out do him on it.

January 2, 2016 9:10 am

“””””””0bama the beast”””””””””””””””””Bush false prophet”””””””””””””””
************************************************************************
Rev 19:20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshiped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1` month left and 7yrs tribulation will be up give or take a day or two.
The worst has yet to come. Sorry but I don’t know the day or hour.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Jim Crows
January 2, 2016 12:04 pm

Jim Crows, “Sorry but I don’t know the day or hour.
You need to consult “The Rapture Index” All your uncertainties will be removed.

david smith
Reply to  Jim Crows
January 3, 2016 7:47 am

Please,
No medieval fairy stories, I implore you.
It makes sceptics look like religious nut-jobs rather than the real scientists that so many of us are.

January 2, 2016 9:11 am

And how much of this data on the 0.33 degrees of warming was due to the faulty and out right BS temperature readings as well??? None of this global climate change crap has anything to do with the planet…it’s ALL about controlling the population, to make us slaves of the “ruling class”…

Reply to  Kafir the Infidel ن (@DWKafir)
January 2, 2016 11:52 am

In the billions of years the earth has existed, and the monumental changes it has endured, it’s very possible that the earth will experience global warming. However, not because of anything Al Gore is suggesting. The earth has experienced warming in the past and ice ages in the past, it will probably experience these phenomenons in the future. When and to what extent, who knows? Our history represents, perhaps a second out of a million years, even perhaps a hundred million years. In that span of future time, any prediction could be true. One prediction is for certain, man will one day disappear, as a species, from the face of the earth. And it will not matter to you or to me. The significance of the human race is only significant to us, but meaningless to the eternal vastness of the galaxy, space and time.

Reply to  William Konrad (@kondore26)
January 2, 2016 12:33 pm

Impossible. The earth has been in a constant state of cooling from the day it began forming.
Anyone that says otherwise is a fool. It won’t experience any warming or cooling that we can affect in any way. Well unless we decide it’s time to start dropping nukes all over the place.. Otherwise it’s safe to say that we are not the cause of jack… or shit..
Surface temps have nothing to do with anything man does. Our minimal contribution does not affect the overall planet temps in any way at all. To say that we do can’t be substantiated at all. There is no proof.
I don’t care what spiritual bullshit you try to lace in the midst of this statement. Any conclusion that this planet has in any way experienced any warming when it’s a fact that it’s a molten ball with a crust barely clinging to the skin and an atmosphere that will likely be stripped away little by little with each pole change by the planet due to lack of a radiation belt for a couple of hundred years… I mean seriously.. Are people so stupid that they can’t see how absurd the entire idea of man having anything to do with cooling or heating of the planet?
And your spiritual mumbojumbo is just that.. nonsensical… 😛

Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 9:11 am

Gore is saying that the 10 year window to act and make changes closes at the end of 2015. There have been many environmentally conscious changes in the past 10 years made by governments across the world in an effort to lower CO2 output and make cleaner burning emissions. The lack of absolute catastrophe may be the result of the fact that changes have been made.

David
Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 10:22 am

Keep believing that if it makes you feel better. Global warming is nothing more than a hoax to get money from the masses.

Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 10:37 am

Sandy Vag, CO2 levels have increased EVERY year despite ‘changes made’, so you can discount the impact of such changes. The CO2 increase has decreased, however – thanks to fracking!!

BruddahNui
Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 10:40 am

What a complete load of Gorelican BS. CO2 has continued to rise. It’s temperature that hasn’t. AGW is a false god.

joel
Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 11:03 am

I just have to pile on.
Nothing has been done to alter the rise of CO2. It is still rising at the same rate as before the alarm was sounded. There has been no climate catastrophe.
The hypothesis is falsified.
They are lying to you.
All the talk of polar bears and such. Hogwash. Just lie after lie after lie.
If you continue to believe their lies, shame on you. If your self image requires you to believe these lies, I feel sorry for you. If you need to say these lies so your friends will not shun you, get new friends.
This is a gigantic fraud. Even your Dr. James Hansen, formerly Mr. Consensus himself, calls the “efforts” to control CO2 a fraud. But, somebody is making money, just not you or me.

acementhead
Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 12:00 pm

Sandyunderpants your alleged governmentally changes have been utterly ineffectual. The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is utterly unchanged in the last 15 years.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg

Don Perry
Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 12:55 pm

Sandy ( or is it Alice?)– What rabbit hole have you got your head pushed down?

Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 1:45 pm

If you did not have sand in your underpamts, you could think rationally. There is much wrong with your post, but I will not do you the favor of explaining; the world needs good examples of bad examples

Charles pasqualina
Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 3:31 pm

I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Real cheap!

Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 6:06 pm

Are you saying that the “window” is still open? No wonder its so freaking cold in here!

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 6:12 pm

Sandy Underpants
The rate of CO2 emissions in the past ten years has only increased not abated. There has been no slowdown of CO2 emissions. Try to think. I know it hurts but so does any muscle that has not been used in a long time when you start to exercise it.
Eugene WR Gallun

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
January 2, 2016 8:16 pm

You’re presuming there was a muscle there to begin with. That’s perhaps an unwarranted assumption.

Reply to  Sandy Underpants
January 2, 2016 7:40 pm

Changes? Maybe. Effort? Maybe. Lower CO2 output? Not on this planet.

hunter
January 2, 2016 9:14 am

El Nino seems to be an event that is actually removing heat from the Earth system.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  hunter
January 2, 2016 4:14 pm

Partly true. When the Pacific Warm Pool sloshes back to the east, it’s shedding heat, first to the atmosphere, then ultimately to space. But atmospheric temperatures don’t go back to where they started; there’s leftover heat. See Bob Tisdale’s explanation. https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/climateprogresss-joe-romm-is-promoting-a-skeptical-view-of-global-warming-el-nino-caused-steps/

Mike
January 2, 2016 9:16 am

Al Gore was an idiot as VP and he’s still an idiot!!

Reply to  Mike
January 2, 2016 12:01 pm

You know Black Lies Matter has got to be mighty upset about all of this. They will announce a protest march in just a few days.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  libertyman62
January 2, 2016 6:15 pm

libertyman62
Black Lies Matter — I must be out of touch. I never saw that before. If you thought it up yourself, con grats.
Eugene WR Gallun

Sam J.
January 2, 2016 9:17 am

An inconvenient truth . . . Gore has made over $100mm from “global warming” AND has among the biggest “carbon footprints” of any individual on the planet. He’s also a crazed sex-poodle! All in all, what a POS.

James (Aus.)
Reply to  Sam J.
January 3, 2016 4:06 am

Just ask Tipper. She tipped him out.

January 2, 2016 9:22 am

AlGore is no different from any of the other “end of the world” nutcases.

John Morris
January 2, 2016 9:26 am

Another deadline announcement from another “doomsday, religious prophet”.

EternalOptimist
January 2, 2016 9:29 am

Thank you hanging Chad. ThankYouThankYouThankYou

Jeff (FL)
Reply to  EternalOptimist
January 2, 2016 11:48 am

… and Katherine Harris.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  EternalOptimist
January 2, 2016 6:18 pm

EternalOptimist
Hahaha — to bad the young won’t get it
Eugene WR Gallun

boydmiller
January 2, 2016 9:29 am

Rising oceans are only a problem for the rich and famous who own ocean front properties. How wonderful for the trailer court owner 2 mi inland when he discovers he now has ocean front property? A 2 degree increase in average temp would be great for those of us in fly over country. It would extend the growing season and save on heating expenses. Global warming is only a problem for the rich coastal elites which are the only ones the government represents anyway. Bring on the warming!

R Shearer
Reply to  boydmiller
January 2, 2016 10:29 am

Hold on. This is not only a problem for the rich. I for instance, enjoy visiting historical sites, such as the Castillo de San Marcos in St. Augustine, FL. Construction of this fort began in 1672 and it sits at the edge of the Atlantic. There is no visible change in sea level at the fort yet but that could change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castillo_de_San_Marcos

Reply to  R Shearer
January 2, 2016 1:08 pm

No problem with sea level though I understand the inlet has shifted quite a bit.

Reply to  R Shearer
January 2, 2016 6:07 pm

Do you snorkel? Problem solved!

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  R Shearer
January 2, 2016 6:25 pm

R Shearer
Sure, it could drop lower.
Eugene WR Gallun

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  R Shearer
January 2, 2016 11:02 pm

R Shearer January 2, 2016 at 10:29 am
“There is no visible change in sea level at the fort yet but that could change.”
Its okay, it is after all a “fort” it can get wet.
I wonder if all the rain has re-flooded Fort Henry again on the Tennessee River. Seem they had a problem with “Climate Change” during the ACW . The river flooded the Fort, dang it. Blasted newfangled locomotives and steam ships, wreak’n the environment.
Do I need a tag?
michael
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/fortdonelson/fort-donelson-history-articles/donelsonjobe.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

eurekadog
January 2, 2016 9:29 am

Another deadline announcement from another doomsday, religious prophet..

January 2, 2016 9:30 am

There is only one person in charge of the weather and it’s not Al Gore

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Amy holzfeind
January 2, 2016 6:28 pm

Well, O’Bummer did once claim that we will end the rise of the seas. And other things. Big talk from a little disappearing man.
Eugene WR Gallun

scott
January 2, 2016 9:31 am

algore laughing all the way to the bank

Wes
Reply to  scott
January 2, 2016 10:27 am

I was glad to see your post. Al Gore may be a Liar, a nut, a con man and an idiot. But look the liberals have made him rich by believing in his lies. And so many of them still believe them. A man once said that Liberalism is a mental disease and he really knew what he was saying. You have to be mentally deficient to believe in something that has time and time again been proven to be a lie. Polar bears did not die off, the ice at the pole did not melt ( even though the spinning WASHINGTON POST tried to convince people with a heavily spun lie stating the north pole was 50 degrees UNDER its norm). Of course, as everyone that is intelligent enough to tie their own shoes now knows, that was North Pole, Alaska which is not even in northern part of Alaska, but the left wing media will tell any lie and spin to support their liberal friends. The down side of this is there are no real Conservatives or people with common sense in the congress or White House. The Liberals are going to be able to force the middle class people to still pay for this huge scam to get more of middle American’s money and split it up among their political buddies.

Catcracking
Reply to  Wes
January 2, 2016 6:40 pm

Wes, did you mean 50 degrees warmer? I did see a big increase in temperature on the WUWT ice page but not 50 degrees (F or C?). I have not seen yet an analysis of the Washington Post claim

Chris
Reply to  Wes
January 4, 2016 2:04 pm

“But look the liberals have made him rich by believing in his lies.”
No, Al Gore made his millions off Apple stock given to him as a company director, and the sale of Current TV. He has made very little if any off his green investments, if you include his losses as well as the gains.

Charles pasqualina
January 2, 2016 9:31 am

Has anyone told al gore there was an ice age. Must have been some kinda massive global warming to get rid of all that ice! O’ and there was the miny ice age of the 1600s you know, the one where Europeans were starving because the crops were not growing.
Must have beem some global warming to take care of that bad boy. And how abot during the 1400s, much warmer
Then these days. Crops grew fine, a time of wealth, crativity, and invention.
Not one SUV in sight! O’ and by the way, has anybody asked old Al Gore
What the prevailing temperature should
Be?

Ruckweiler
January 2, 2016 9:33 am

Gore is a pure nut. Meanwhile, he lectures the rest of us while flying all over the world in his jet. Scam artist to fill his wallet!

January 2, 2016 9:33 am

Al Gore should be required to return all the money he stole from the ignorant fools that believed that a corrupt politician had some kind of clue, that he could predict the weather patterns for a decade in advance! Normal weather people can’t correctly predict incoming storms accurately even 3 days in advance let alone 10 years. Yet with Al Gore’s political connections, he did the same thing as the sub prime mortgage groups did to the American people! They are all corrupt crooks ! Until man figures out how to control the Sun’s rays, Man has very little effect on the weather. Throw Al Gore and all his corrupt scientists that faked their scientific reports for financial gain, in order to fund their pet projects with taxpayer money.

January 2, 2016 9:34 am

Let’s not forget the shifting tilt of the earth and the impact it has on climate change:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151214142053.htm

Dodgy Geezer
January 2, 2016 9:34 am

…unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return,…
Well, of course, he’s quite right.
We are at a point of ‘no return’. We can’t go back to 2006. Indeed, we can’t go back to 2015.
The way time works is that you can never go back to anything.. Mind you, that’s not exactly news….

RAH
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
January 3, 2016 4:15 am

But you can look back quite a significant period in time. All one needs is a telescope and descent night skies. Telescopes are the closest thing we have to a time machine.

christopherjamesgx@gmail.com
January 2, 2016 9:35 am

Gore is an idiot. 10 years to bring about a new world order is more like it. Why are we focused on finding a way to create a new massive tax system? How about we solve a few of the big problems first… farming and fossil fuels!? Let’s invest in new farming technologies and new fuel sources. I mean we can power cars with compressed air and hydrogen which is much cleaner. Why don’t we do a new Manhattan project and create a clean burning fuel and give it freely to the world? Is mean too greedy and power hungry to really come together to solve a problem we have the technology to solve?

ManBearPig
January 2, 2016 9:37 am

Refuse to follow al Gorezeera off the Climate Cult Cliff. He has no friends.

January 2, 2016 9:38 am

Yawn, wake me when the World is actually ending so I can see it go out in a blaze of glory.

January 2, 2016 9:39 am

Al gore is a snake oil salesman. Dependent on the naive, gullible, dim witted, feeble minded and mentally challenged to listen to his nonsense
I don’t blame Al Gore as much as I blame the naive, gullible, dim witted, feeble minded and mentally challenged who listen to Al Gore. Whoops!!! I guess they listen to Al Gore because they are naive, gullible, dim witted, feeble minded and mentally challenged. Global warming, which is complete and total nonsense to anyone with more than two functioning brain cells, makes perfect sense to them.

Reply to  jenna paris
January 2, 2016 11:07 am

For almost 20 years CO2 (“carbon”) has been rising, but global temperatures have been declining — exactly the opposite of what Algore predicted:
http://tiny.cc/y38s7x
Next, we see the usual Brandon Gates cherry-picked propaganda in his comment right below. But here’s what Gates is not showing:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
(click in chart to embiggen)
That is global ice cover, which recently took a normal and natural dip. As we see, it is recovering. Global ice is almost at its 30-year average. Like numerous times before, it will probably rise past the average. But to climate alarmists, every little wiggle indicates impending doom — but only those wiggles that support their belief system. And without any proof at all, they blame human CO2 emissions (only ≈3% of the total) for their negative wiggles. But they go silent when the wiggles go against them.
So my meter pegs whenever Gates posts something:
http://americandigest.org/aabullshitdetect.gif

Brandon Gates
Reply to  dbstealey
January 2, 2016 1:21 pm

Next, we see the usual Brandon Gates cherry-picked propaganda in his comment right below. But here’s what Gates is not showing:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Nice try, Stealey. These two plots from my initial post combined …
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iN_ice_extent_19812010a.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iS_ice_extent_19812010a.png
… should roughly add up to the one you posted above. Now, if you want to quibble about the difference between sea ice extent and sea ice area, well be my guest.

And without any proof at all, they blame human CO2 emissions (only ≈3% of the total) for their negative wiggles.

Algebra fail. Human beings account for ~0% of the sinks. Speaking of “proof” …

That is global ice cover, which recently took a normal and natural dip.

Where’s your “proof” DB? Try to not use any estimates in your answer … I know how big you are on measurements.
Ta.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 2, 2016 2:25 pm

See? The ^climate alarmist crowd^ clings to “Arctic ice” like a drowning man clings to a stick.
Earth to the alarmist contingent: humans have no effect on polar ice.
Next, there was no mention of “sinks” in my comment; a typical strawman setup. I referred only to sources. And the fact is, there’s no evidence that CO2 causes any global damage or harm, but there’s plenty of evidence showing that more CO2 is very beneficial.
And since the stupid “Arctic ice” argument never goes away, here’s some perspective:
http://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/arctic-sea-ice-dec-2015.gif
Normal folks look at all the evidence, and try to make an informed, rational decision. But climate alarmists don’t need any of that sciency stuff. They already have their belief, and that’s enough for them.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  dbstealey
January 2, 2016 4:36 pm

dbstealey,

Earth to the alarmist contingent: humans have no effect on polar ice.

Proper skeptics to Stealey: how is it that you come by this knowledge?

Next, there was no mention of “sinks” in my comment; a typical strawman setup. I referred only to sources.

No, dearest DB. A strawman is a cariacature of an argument attributed to one’s opponent built expressly for the purpose of refuting because it’s so ridiculous. The fact that your original “sinks only” argument is ridiuclous has got nothing to do with ME and everything to do with the fact that you’ve apparently forgotten how to balance equations.
Me bringing up sinks when you mentioned ONLY sources is what rational honest, rational people call a rebuttal … as well as basic numeracy.

And since the stupid “Arctic ice” argument never goes away, here’s some perspective:

http://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/arctic-sea-ice-dec-2015.gif
Pretty picture. What does it mean? Is it an estimate, or a measurement?

Normal folks look at all the evidence, and try to make an informed, rational decision.

Oh good, then you won’t mind commenting on this plot …
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_global.png

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 6:44 pm

…how is it that you come by this knowledge?
You got it backwards again! Skeptics have nothing to prove.
We take things as they are, or appear to be. alarmists, on the other hand, presume whatever they want, and then accuse scientific skeptics of having the hidden ‘knowledge’ that you suppose yourselves must possess.
Next, your tap-dancing around the obvious fact that you mis-read my comment isn’t a “rebuttal”, it is a typically amusing misteak. Keep it up, it’s a slow nite here…
Next:
Pretty picture. What does it mean?
OK, I will explain it for you, but I gotta say, schooling you has been tedious. The “pretty picture” shows that the 2015 Arctic ice levels were ho-hum.
Next, yes, I will be morn happy to comment on your cherry-picked “upper ocean” link:
For one thing, total ocean heat content, from the surface to 700 metres depth, has flattened in recent years, while [harmless, beneficial] CO2 continues its steady rise:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/2i7qn9y.jpg
Oh good, then you won’t mind commenting on this plot…
Sure thing. This graph explains it nicely. Anyone else could understand:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ocean-heat.gif
And here’s the ARGO data from zero to 1900 metres, showing deep ocean cooling:
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/NH-0-65N-v-50-65N-0-2000dBar-2004-2013max.png
Got lots more. Just ax. ☺

Reed Coray
Reply to  dbstealey
January 2, 2016 5:35 pm

Like Joules for energy, Watts for power, Ohms for resistance, etc., we need a unit of measure for bulls**t. I recommend an AlGore–defined as the amount of bulls**t produced by Al Gore in a single year, or equivalently, the amount of bulls**t produced by the rest of the world in one century. However, since one AlGore is a very large number, for daily use we’ll have to use a microAlGore, which still may be too large for the average person to comprehend.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  dbstealey
January 2, 2016 6:43 pm

dbstealey
There was an old movie called VANISHING POINT. It was the speed a car reached when the speedometer pointer went so far to the right that it vanished from sight. Al Gore’s lies have passed the vanishing point.
Eugene WR Gallun

AndyG55
Reply to  dbstealey
January 2, 2016 6:58 pm

Current Arctic sea ice is just about on the edge of 1sd from the 1980-2010 mean.
This is pretty much EXACTLY where it should be for the phase of the AMO.
http://s19.postimg.org/7c5hbcs6r/amomean.jpg
Thus there is no hint whatsoever of ANY human influence on Arctic sea ice.

AndyG55
Reply to  dbstealey
January 2, 2016 7:00 pm

A better chart where the pink area shows a guestimate of the 1sd region.
As anyone can see, the blue dot (current) is just outside that region.. just like the Arctic sea ice levels are.
http://s19.postimg.org/f7g5os3ar/Amomean1sd.jpg

Brandon Gates
Reply to  dbstealey
January 2, 2016 8:34 pm

You got it backwards again! Skeptics have nothing to prove.

Stealey once again besmirches the word “skeptic” by confusing “nothing to prove” with “nothing to offer”.

Carbon500
Reply to  dbstealey
January 3, 2016 6:12 am

dbstealey: Regarding your instruction at the bottom of the first graph “click in chart to embiggen” – the correct word is “enlarge”.

Reply to  Carbon500
January 3, 2016 11:20 am

Carbon500,
Thank you, much appreciated. But I like ’embiggen’. ☺

johann wundersamer
Reply to  dbstealey
January 10, 2016 10:33 pm

Brandon Gates asks for human sinks; after all, it’s carnival!
Skulls and Bones comes to mind: CaCO3.
sweet our sour, take it or leave it to the kids.
Hans

JDB Esq.
Reply to  jenna paris
January 2, 2016 7:15 pm

I hate snakes.

Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 9:40 am

Anthony,

Well, the 10 years are about up, by now, warming should have reached “planetary emergency levels” Let’s look at the data …

Let’s first look at some other text from the same article first:
The film centers on the elaborate slideshow presentations Gore conducts around the world for live audiences on the perils of global warming. He presents alarming images of ice-cap meltdowns and graphs linking the rise and fall of atmospheric carbon-dioxide to rising and falling temperatures.
If the pace of pollution continues, Gore’s projections for carbon-dioxide levels are off the charts within a few decades.
Among the worst-case consequences: A new ice age in Europe, and massive flooding of regions in India, China and elsewhere that could make refugees of tens of millions of people.

That’s a lot of data to consider. I offer 5 data points relevant to the above summary:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/idata_grs_19812010a.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/idata_ant_19812010a.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ipiomas_mo_19812010a.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iN_ice_extent_19812010a.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iS_ice_extent_19812010a.png
I could do without much of Mr. Gore’s (and CBS’) hyperbole and appeals to Polar Bears, but from literature I gather that the main concern is that even if we could reduce emissions to zero without fubaring the world’s economy to a fiscal Stone Age, there’s a good chance that landed ice loss would continue on its merry way even as surface temps began to stabilize because of the retained energy by the oceans since Mr. Gore’s hit film …
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_global.png
… which has quite evidently continued unabated, and which is something that orbiting microwave sounding units pressed into service to model lower tropospheric temps cannot see.
The thing which I wish to impress upon you and your readers is that knowing whether we’ve reached a “tipping-point” for “irreversible” landed ice loss is not something I can “know” just from looking at the scant amount of additional data I have offered for consideration. Guesstimating the future state(s) of a physical system requires a model, period, full stop, end of story.
There’s a lot more to this physical system to model than just CO2 and surface temperature.

Al Gore’s posited “within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and “a true planetary emergency.” is proving to be nothing more than PR bullshit to push his movie, and won’t happen by the ten year countdown of January 25th 2016.

Ok fine. Are you telling us that there’s nothing to be concerned about?

Editor
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 9:58 am

Despite your gloomy outlook, I haven’t seen anything that convinces me the Earth will be anywhere near conditions that it hasn’t experienced before. I hope you don’t mind when we celebrate victory in 24 days.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 10:12 am

Cooling is something to be concerned about, not the slight beneficial warming we’ve experienced. And cooling is very possible in the coming decades. The long-term trend the past 10,000 years is downward.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
The whole “tipping points” meme is a joke.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 10:55 am

I could not agree more with you Bob. And I love that graph.
I would only add that over the next 100 years the temperature might go up a bit or might go down a bit. The temperatures might go up a lot or might go down a lot — I can’t prove which one.
I can tell you this though: CO2 will have nothing at all to do with it whatever it is.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 11:04 am

Bruce Cobb,

And cooling is very possible in the coming decades.

Sure, Pakistan could nuke India, who would in all likelihood respond in kind. We could get hit by a big asteroid or comet. Lake Toba or the Yellowstone caldera could go up again. What else? Oh yes, silly me … I forgot the Sun.

The long-term trend the past 10,000 years is downward.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hksiecM4u3Q/VLYC3ecYOKI/AAAAAAAAAP4/ZsJFpmrxgZo/s1600/GISP2%2BHADCRUT4CW%2BHolocene.png
Hmmm ….
The prediction for orbital forcings a la Milankovitch are not calling for cooling any time soon either:comment image

The whole “tipping points” meme is a joke.

Really. Here, go argue with Bintanja et al (2008):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/abs/nature07158.html
Here we use a comprehensive ice-sheet model and a simple ocean-temperature model11 to extract three-million-year mutually consistent records of surface air temperature, ice volume and sea level from marine benthic oxygen isotopes12. Although these records and their relative phasings are subject to considerable uncertainty owing to limited availability of palaeoclimate constraints, the results suggest that the gradual emergence of the 100,000-year cycles can be attributed to the increased ability of the merged North American ice sheets to survive insolation maxima and reach continental-scale size. The oversized, wet-based ice sheet probably responded to the subsequent insolation maximum by rapid thinning through increased basal-sliding13, 14, thereby initiating a glacial termination.
The model output data are here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/bintanja2008/

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 2:33 pm

Cowtan & Way?? Not credible. But I’m saving that bogus chart. It goes in my folder with this other highly alarming chart:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Really, those folks have no shame. Sounding a false alarm for money, and pats on the head.
They must check their integrity at the door when they fabricate charts like that.
They learned from Michael Mann that lying about the ‘climate’ brings in loot:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/hockeystick.gif

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 2:52 pm

dbstealey,

Cowtan & Way?? Not credible.

Why not?

Sounding a false alarm for money, and pats on the head. They must check their integrity at the door when they fabricate charts like that.

Stealey gets the second smoked irony meter of the year.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 6:54 pm

“Cowtan & Way?? Not credible.”
“Why not?”
The search box is your friend debunker:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Cowtan+%26+Way

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 7:00 pm

Brandon Gates
Now Brandon, on this site many people go into the data a climate paper presents and talk the author’s methods and math and relate it all to the conclusions the author has reached.
You never do that.
Why don’t you pick a paper written by a prominent “denialist”, go into the data and explain why the author’s methods, math and conclusions are wrong, If you were to do that you would win yourself some respect around here.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
January 2, 2016 7:24 pm

EWR Gallun”Why don’t you pick a paper written by a prominent “denialist”, go into the data and explain why the author’s methods, math and conclusions are wrong, If you were to do that you would win yourself some respect around here.”
Phhhffffffftttt! According to John Cook and friends, out of all the papers in the world only something like 1% of them outrighted denied AGW….it might take BG forever just to actually locate one! (grinning madly-hugs!)

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 8:14 pm

Eugene W Gallun,

You never do that.

Pardon me for being blunt, but you don’t know f*!kall about what I do or don’t do.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 8:20 pm

Eugene WR Gallun,
I think you hit a nerve!

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 9:03 pm

Oh look. It talks. How cute.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 9:16 pm

Brandon Gates
“Pardon me for being blunt but you don’t know F*!lall about what I do or don’t do.”
Not to beat a dead head —
but I do know what you do and don’t do on this blog.
Eugene WR Gallun

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 9:51 pm

Pardon me again for spending my limited time how I choose.

AndyG55
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 10:08 pm

“Pardon me again for spending my limited time how I choose.”
As a pointless waste of your time.. you are doing very well.
You obviously feel that your time is worthless.
To which we would all heartily agree.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 2, 2016 11:32 pm

skeohane January 2, 2016 at 11:27 am
You make a good point. There is more to it than that.
It was not just the Alps. The Austro-Hungarian army froze to death trying to hold the Carpathian passes in 1914-1915. Whole regiments after a couple of nights would have just a handful of survivors. As they marched to and from the front, wolves attacked any who straggled. Then there was the Turkish Army in Eastern Anatolia bordering Russia. They froze the first winter (1915-1916). Their army never really recovered.
Look at where the snow storms are occurring in Southeastern Europe and western Asia. It’s the same as a hundred years ago.
michael

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 3, 2016 9:22 am

Andy,
I’m still waiting to see the first person say that B. Gates has convinced them of his climate panic. He’s convinced that every cherry-picked factoid he finds points to a climate catastrophe. He should read Feynman’s warning that the easiest one to fool is yourself.
Me, I listen to what Planet Earth is saying. She’s not the least bit worried, so why should we be?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 3, 2016 4:55 pm

Yes, Bruce. And the joke is on us, we are being conned.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 10:19 am

Brandon,
Yes, there is nothing to be concerned about. 30 or even 50 year records are not long enough to make any conclusions about climatic trends. Especially when they are so tiny and collected with instruments incapable of measuring to the level of accuracy you show. To compound the problems the software used to model and crunch all that data was written by people with little or no training in software engineering. The output of such unverified software should be considered unreliable at the very least. So relax and stop drinking the koolaide.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 2, 2016 11:09 am

Paul Penrose,

Yes, there is nothing to be concerned about.

Ok, what a relief.

30 or even 50 year records are not long enough to make any conclusions about climatic trends.

Wait … you just told me there was nothing to worry about.

Especially when they are so tiny and collected with instruments incapable of measuring to the level of accuracy you show.

Sounds like we’re both in the dark then.

To compound the problems the software used to model and crunch all that data was written by people with little or no training in software engineering.

That really does not put my mind at ease.

The output of such unverified software should be considered unreliable at the very least.

Seriously, that is NOT helping convince me that you have any better idea of what the future holds.

So relax and stop drinking the koolaide.

Funny you should say that … I was just reaching for the single-malt.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 2, 2016 7:07 pm

Brandon Gates
I will pick the low hanging fruit. Among other things you say to Paul Penrose —
“Sounds like we’re BOTH in the dark!”
To which I reply — May be, but you are the only one having nightmares.
Eugene WR Gallun

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 2, 2016 8:09 pm

Not really. And I’m mainly concerned with how to get done what I think needs done, not so much what might happen if we don’t. Selfish it may be, but I’ll be dead by the time the worst of the worst imagined consequences are supposed to happen.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 2, 2016 8:57 pm

Brandon Gates
“I’ll be dead by the time the worst of the worst of the imagined consequences are supposed to happen”
In your reply “imagined” is the operative word.
Eugene WR Gallun

AndyG55
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 2, 2016 9:37 pm

“And I’m mainly concerned with how to get done what I think needs done,”
You are, instead, wasting your time in front of a computer sprouting meaningless, purposeless, gibberish and making a fool of yourself.
But I guess…… if that is what you think needs to be done… keep going. 😉
I’m sure that if you actually engaged your brain, you could find something more productive and useful… or not.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 3, 2016 9:31 am

Eugene WR Gallun,

In your reply “imagined” is the operative word.

Yes, imagined, as in attempting to conceptualize a foreseen event which may or may not happen:
1. form a mental image or concept of.
“imagine a road trip from Philadelphia to Chicago”
synonyms: visualize, envisage, envision, picture, see in the mind’s eye;

There is another sense to the word, as in:
2. suppose or assume.
“Eugene imagines that this whole AGW thingy is a hoax because he’d rather twist other peoples’ words around than actually learn something.”
synonyms: assume, presume, expect, take it, presuppose;

Of course for me to presume such a thing is actually true about you also fits under the same sense of imagine, and obviously reflects my own prejudices and biases more than it does your actual motives.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 3, 2016 9:48 am

AndyG55,

You are, instead, wasting your time in front of a computer sprouting meaningless, purposeless, gibberish and making a fool of yourself.

It’s not at all clear to me that you actually understand any of my substantive points on this thread as you have failed to directly rebut a single one of them.

I’m sure that if you actually engaged your brain, you could find something more productive and useful… or not.

Once again someone is laughably ignorant about how I actually spend most of my time on the issue of global warming: reading literature and looking at data. Even then, I can easily imagine how people who have nothing for me but vacuous replies laced with petty insults would find that a complete waste of time.
Good grief, is it too much to ask for a witty insult? Anyone? Bueller?

AndyG55
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 3, 2016 12:00 pm

Brandon, you have NOT made any substantive point, just endless meaningless waffle.
You are so poorly educated that you can’t tell the difference.
I doubt you can name one person on here that you have ever persuaded of anything.
That is how worthless and pointless you time spent here is.
You are the equivalent of the class clown.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 4, 2016 3:04 pm

Gee, and your additions to the discussion are so clearly superior.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 11:27 am

Gates asks:
Are you telling us that there’s nothing to be concerned about?
Of course there are things to be concerned about!
Lions and tigers and polar bears, Oh my! The sky is falling! The world is flat and you could fall off the edge! President Hillary! Obama running the UN! Irregularity!
I can think of lots of scary things. But “climate change” isn’t one of them. ☺

Goldrider
Reply to  dbstealey
January 2, 2016 12:37 pm

You left out Bernie Sanders.

Reply to  Goldrider
January 2, 2016 12:38 pm

And Hillary!

Brandon Gates
Reply to  dbstealey
January 2, 2016 12:38 pm

dbstealey,

President Hillary! Obama running the UN!

Definitely NOT alarmist.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 1:10 pm

Brandon: you quote from the blurb: “He presents alarming images of ice-cap meltdowns”. Does that mean you believe the dramatic scenes of glaciers melting/calving in the header sequence? Secondly, do you believe that the film, “The Day After Tomorrow” was also a documentary?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 2, 2016 1:26 pm

Harry Passfield,

Does that mean you believe the dramatic scenes of glaciers melting/calving in the header sequence?

I don’t remember the opening sequence, but I doubt it was fake footage. Doesn’t matter, what I think you’re asking me is whether I realize that glacier calving was going on before we started emitting CO2. Which I do.

Secondly, do you believe that the film, “The Day After Tomorrow” was also a documentary?

No, and in fact I annoyed the hell out of everyone watching it with me telling them how bogus it was.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 2, 2016 1:43 pm

Brandon: How very “conventient” you don’t remember the opening sequence – yet you’re not bothered to look it up. Perhaps you should do so with this report in mind. as it – and many others, including the director of The Day After etc – claim plagiarism by Gore. Of course, this one lie in his movie should be enough to invalidate it, but a Judge in the UK said there were NINE failings. what value to you place on that heap of Inconvenient ‘ordure’ now, Brandon.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 2, 2016 1:55 pm

Even better, Brandon, see if you have the b@lls to view video clip?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 2, 2016 2:04 pm

Harry Passfield,
How convenient for you that you think you know what goes on in other people’s heads. But for what it’s worth, let’s talk about stuff neither of us can prove instead of sticking to what can be argued by independently available data.
I don’t remember the opening sequence because I only saw it once. While I thought it was good film making I personally thought it was emotionally overwrought, a second helping wasn’t something I was or am interested in. I know now that there were a substantial number of inaccuracies and overstatements — you say nine significant ones, a figure I’m prepared to accept — so overall I don’t hold a good opinion of the film.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 2, 2016 2:24 pm

Brandon: When you say:

I don’t remember the opening sequence because I only saw it once. While I thought it was good film making I personally thought it was emotionally overwrought, a second helping wasn’t something I was or am interested in.Yet, earlier in this thread you praised the same film and thought many of its points were well made. Hah! You’re effectively sticking your finger in your ears and going “lalalalalalalala”. Your mind is closed. what a failed person you are. Shame.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 2, 2016 2:27 pm

EDIT:
Brandon: When you say:

I don’t remember the opening sequence because I only saw it once. While I thought it was good film making I personally thought it was emotionally overwrought, a second helping wasn’t something I was or am interested in.

Yet, earlier in this thread you praised the same film and thought many of its points were well made. Hah! You’re effectively sticking your finger in your ears and going “lalalalalalalala”. Your mind is closed. what a failed person you are. Shame.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 2, 2016 2:43 pm

Harry Passfield,

“I don’t remember the opening sequence because I only saw it once. While I thought it was good film making I personally thought it was emotionally overwrought, a second helping wasn’t something I was or am interested in.”
Yet, earlier in this thread you praised the same film and thought many of its points were well made.

Here is exactly what I wrote about the film in my first post: I could do without much of Mr. Gore’s (and CBS’) hyperbole and appeals to Polar Bears, but from literature I gather …
Where’s the contradiction again?

Your mind is closed. what a failed person you are. Shame.

… says the guy who wandered into a science discussion armed mainly with schoolyard taunts and a “talent” for building strawmen.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 3, 2016 9:29 am

“A talent for building strawmen”??
Gates has no mirrors in his home, I presume. He wrote upthread:
…what I think you’re asking me is whether I realize that glacier calving was going on before we started emitting CO2. Which I do.
That’s a textbook example of erecting a strawman and knocking it down. What HP meant was what he wrote, and “CO2” isn’t in it. The strawman came along later.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 3, 2016 10:17 am

Pretty thin Stealey. Look, I know Anthony’s argument is weak because it inaccurately portrays Mr. Gore’s film as being mostly about the relationship between CO2 and lower tropospheric temperatures as estimated by modelling atmospheric microwave emissions from satellites. I’d be embarrassed by it if I were you too. But guess what, hen-pecking me with trivial claptrap and petulant insults aren’t going to fix the fact that the original article is more or less … crap.

u.k(us)
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 1:24 pm

Ok fine yourself, have you got a cure for that 50% of the worlds population that has no internet access and/or are living under dictatorships ?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  u.k(us)
January 2, 2016 1:28 pm

Airstrikes are a popular option these days.

Reply to  u.k(us)
January 2, 2016 6:53 pm

u.k(us) “Ok fine yourself, have you got a cure for that 50% of the worlds population that has no internet access and/or are living under dictatorships ?”
BG- “Airstrikes are a popular option these days.”
Aphan-You want us to conduct airstrikes on the 50% of the world’s population that has no internet access and/or are living under dictatorships?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  u.k(us)
January 2, 2016 7:48 pm

Welllll …. it would solve the overpopulation problem we greenies are always on about ….
[visibletags]
[/sarc]
[/visibletags]

AndyG55
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 2:12 pm

NH sea ice is behaving EXACTLY as would be prescribed by the phase of the AMO.
Heck you can even see the uptick starting in the volume graph since about 2007.
http://s19.postimg.org/4crolmgmr/amo_vs_NHice.jpg
and UAH NoPol shows the cooling starting.
http://s19.postimg.org/i7k87yl9v/UAH_No_Pol.jpg

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
January 2, 2016 4:29 pm

And , of course, everybody KNOWS that Arctic sea ice is still ANOMOLOUSLY HIGH compared to most of the rest of the current interglacial.
During the first 3/4 of the Holocene, summer sea ice levels of ZERO were quite NORMAL
But of course , if the ignorant alarmista want to concentrate on a very short period at the end of a SLIGHT warming out of the COLDEST period in the last few thousand years. who am I to stop them making fools of themselves.
I hope Big Al can provide them a nice dark crevasse to crawl back into as Arctic sea ice levels start to climb again over the next several years. 🙂

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
January 2, 2016 4:32 pm

Oh Look, the turn-around has already started,comment image

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 2:48 pm

Go ahead, be very very frightened.
Panic if you want.
There was no natural world prior to 1950,1975 nor 2002.?
Brandon Gates, classic chicken little choosing of time period, you are displaying the rather odd logic of a modern progressive, willful ignorance of human history, geology and even our very short weather records.
If you want to beat your self up and pray to the idols of your own choosing go ahead.
The only thing you have “impressed upon” this reader is your gullibility.
Omens, signs and idiocy.
What would your reaction to the 1926-27 Mississippi Flood be, if it occurred this year?
Brandon it may surprise you to learn but I care not what you “know” I care what you can prove.
Where is the evidence?
Projecting linear trends onto cyclic systems is pretty stupid.
Your subject changing skills and long winded diversionary attempts(trolling skill) do not indicate you are quite that stupid.
So are you paid by the word?
Or a legend in your own mind?
Don’t disappoint me now, first the straw man argument, then the squirrel, followed by “authorities” of you choosing.
May you have an enlightening New Year

Brandon Gates
Reply to  John Robertson
January 2, 2016 3:02 pm

John Robertson,

There was no natural world prior to 1950,1975 nor 2002.?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t disappoint me now, first the straw man argument …

[looks up at John’s handywork … shrugs … reads on]

… then the squirrel …

[no squirrels here except the one John is chasing]

… followed by “authorities” of you choosing.

Yeah, representative democracy, such a drag innit.
Hey now, one good scarecrow deserves another.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 5:20 pm

Brandon The elephants, hippos and alligators that lived up near the North pole during the last inter-glacial thought the lack of ice was a good thing. They were not concerned, why should we be.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Matt Bergin
January 2, 2016 7:40 pm

Sea levels were 3-7 meters higher during the Eemian for starters. If Miami, New Orleans, Galveston, etc. had been built 122,000 years ago, that obviously wouldn’t have been a problem. But they weren’t.

Reply to  Matt Bergin
January 3, 2016 9:59 am

As John Robertson wrote:
Don’t disappoint me now, first the straw man argument, then the squirrel, followed by “authorities” of you choosing.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Matt Bergin
January 4, 2016 3:01 pm

And that’s relevant to my rebuttal how, exactly, Stealey?

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 6:38 pm

“The thing which I wish to impress upon you and your readers is that knowing whether we’ve reached a “tipping-point” for “irreversible” landed ice loss is not something I can “know” just from looking at the scant amount of additional data I have offered for consideration. Guesstimating the future state(s) of a physical system requires a model, period, full stop, end of story.”
Here’s the thing that one of his readers would like to impress upon you is that you also cannot “KNOW” that we’ve reached a “tipping-point” for “irreversible landed ice loss” from a “guesstimation of the future state(s) of a physical system generated by ANY OF OUR CURRENT MODELS, period, full stop, end of story.
Guesstimation: “It is defined as an estimate made without using adequate or complete information, or, more strongly, as an estimate arrived at by guesswork or conjecture.”
The guesstimations involved in our current models is what produces projections/predictions that are invalid beyond 24-48 hours into the future. Anything beyond that becomes even MORE inaccurate as time goes on. So what exactly can you possibly KNOW about the future state of this planet?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Aphan
January 4, 2016 2:56 pm

Aphan,

Here’s the thing that one of his readers would like to impress upon you is that you also cannot “KNOW” that we’ve reached a “tipping-point” for “irreversible landed ice loss” from a “guesstimation of the future state(s) of a physical system generated by ANY OF OUR CURRENT MODELS, period, full stop, end of story.

I would tend to agree with you about that more than I wouldn’t.

Guesstimation: “It is defined as an estimate made without using adequate or complete information, or, more strongly, as an estimate arrived at by guesswork or conjecture.”

I agree with that definition. Problem is, I know of no universal authority on what constitutes “adequate information”, and wouldn’t accept one if there was. I reserve the right to form my own opinions based on what I read in literature and data that I study on my own.

The guesstimations involved in our current models is what produces projections/predictions that are invalid beyond 24-48 hours into the future.

Sure … and you definitely wouldn’t catch me swearing to the reliability of a weather model much past a few days, and certainly not 99.99% accuracy over any time period.

Anything beyond that becomes even MORE inaccurate as time goes on.

Something Lorenz compellingly argued in 1963 with respect to weather: http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Deterministic_63.pdf

So what exactly can you possibly KNOW about the future state of this planet?

I think that’s a bit of a loaded question, Aphan; nobody KNOWs for certain what will happen in the future. However, I do believe we can make some reasonable guesses. Let me give you an example. I think we’d both agree it would have been ridiculous for me to say on New Year’s Day in 1871 that the low temperature in Toronto on New Year’s Eve 2015 would be 0.6 degrees Celsius, and that the high temperature in Toronto on the same day would be 1.8 degrees Celsius with 95% confidence. Totally ludicrous, right? Right.
On the other hand, I could have said in 1871, with 95% confidence, based on observations for the month of December between 1841-1870 [1] that I expect the min temperature on 12/31/2015 to lie between -18.08 and 4.84 degrees Celsius, and the max temperature on the same day to lie between -9.51 and 9.51 degrees Celsius. And in this case I would have been right.
“Aha,” you say, “but how many times would you have been wrong for the entire month of December, 2015?” Well, since December, 2015 temperatures are now a matter of record, I can tell you:

http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ngdcnCA006158355.dat
# Searching for GHCND series nr CA006158355
# coordinates:  43.67N,  -79.40E,    113.0m; GHCN-D station code: CA006158355 TORONTO_CITY,_ON Canada
# WMO station 71508
# TMIN GHCN-D V2.0 data with QC in [Celsius]
# The non-U.S. data cannot be redistributed within or outside of the U.S. for any commercial activities.
 2015 12 10      5.10
 2015 12 11      5.10
 2015 12 14      5.20
 2015 12 24      6.50
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/xgdcnCA006158355.dat
# Searching for GHCND series nr CA006158355
# coordinates:  43.67N,  -79.40E,    113.0m; GHCN-D station code: CA006158355 TORONTO_CITY,_ON Canada
# WMO station 71508
# TMAX GHCN-D V2.0 data with QC in [Celsius]
# The non-U.S. data cannot be redistributed within or outside of the U.S. for any commercial activities.
 2015 12 10     11.50
 2015 12 11     14.00
 2015 12 14     13.30
 2015 12 16     10.60
 2015 12 17     10.60
 2015 12 18     10.60
 2015 12 24     14.40
 2015 12 25     10.20

So I was wrong 4 days out of 21 recorded for Tmin, and 8 days out of 21 recorded for Tmax, or 20% of the time for Tmin and 40% of the time for Tmax whereas I was expecting to be wrong 5% of the time. Not too shabby for a prediction made 145 years into the future on 30 years worth of December min/max temperatures based on the assumption of no change in climatic factors. However, it IS large enough of a deviation from my prediction to hypothesize that some climatic change has in fact occurred.
I’ll wait for you to respond before discussing further.
—————
[1] Data for the 30-year historical 1841-1870 climatology taken from here:
TORONTO,_ON (Canada)
coordinates: 43.67N, -79.40E, 113.0m
GHCN-D station code: CA006158350 (get data)
WMO station: 71266
Found 164 years of data in 1840-2003
Tmax: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/xgdcnCA006158350.dat
Tmin: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ngdcnCA006158350.dat

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 4, 2016 7:49 pm

BG
You MUST stop the following behavior.
I said-“So what exactly can you possibly KNOW about the future state of this planet?”
I asked a very specific question related to the future state of this planet?
BG-“I think that’s a bit of a loaded question, Aphan; nobody KNOWs for certain what will happen in the future. However, I do believe we can make some reasonable guesses”
First, I didn’t ask you what you can possibly KNOW about the future. I asked you what you can possibly KNOW about the future state of this planet. So YOU changed my question and then attempted to answer your own adaptation of my question.
Second, the definition of a false analogy is “a rhetorical fallacy that uses an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to support an argument, but the conclusion made by it is not supported by the analogy due to the differences between the two objects.”
So, you first changed my question into something else, and then attempted to “defeat” your adaptation-that’s called a strawman. I’m not saying you did it on purpose, I’m just saying that’s what you did.
THEN you just used an analogy about predicting the WEATHER in Toronto on a specific date and time to support your argument that we can make reasonable guesses about the future. It DOES support the conclusion that we can make reasonable guesses about what the weather in Toronto will be at a future date. But that is ALL it supports.
Do you understand?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Aphan
January 4, 2016 9:03 pm

Aphan,

You MUST stop the following behavior.

My activities here are at the pleasure of Mr. Watts and his designated moderation team. I mustn’t stop doing anything but what they ask me to stop. Thanks.

I asked a very specific question related to the future state of this planet?

I don’t think that’s specific at all. This planet has as many parameters as our collective intellect is capable of defining and then some, which I allude to in my statement at the beginning of this subthread: Guesstimating the future state(s) of a physical system requires a model, period, full stop, end of story.
Ya’ see, this is MY argument that I am making here about the predictive (in)abilities of physical (and now statistical) models, and I’m under no obligation whatsoever to accede to what you think that argument should be.

First, I didn’t ask you what you can possibly KNOW about the future. I asked you what you can possibly KNOW about the future state of this planet.

Since the future states of the set of all Earth’s parameters will occur … in the future … how is it NOT correct for me rephrase that to: nobody KNOWs for certain what will happen in the future.?

So YOU changed my question and then attempted to answer your own adaptation of my question.

Nope, I didn’t change a thing. You asked: So what exactly can you possibly KNOW about the future state of this planet?
My answer still is: … nobody KNOWs for certain what will happen in the future.
… which includes all states of any conceivable parameter of the planet’s physical being … or not being as the case may be.
[snip]

THEN you just used an analogy about predicting the WEATHER in Toronto on a specific date and time to support your argument that we can make reasonable guesses about the future. It DOES support the conclusion that we can make reasonable guesses about what the weather in Toronto will be at a future date. But that is ALL it supports.
Do you understand?

No, because I can use the same method for temperature in Atlanta too.
Do YOU understand … yet?

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 4, 2016 10:13 pm

BG-“My activities here are at the pleasure of Mr. Watts and his designated moderation team. I mustn’t stop doing anything but what they ask me to stop. Thanks.”
Forgive me, you’re right. Let me amend what I said previously-
“You MUST stop the following behavior.” Should read “You MUST stop the following behavior if you want to appear rational and keep me from busting your chops. ”
I said -“I asked a very specific question related to the future state of this planet?”
BG- “I don’t think that’s specific at all.”
Really? Because its a lot more specific than just asking a question about the future in general….which can mean the future of anything, anywhere.
BG- “This planet has as many parameters as our collective intellect is capable of defining and then some, which I allude to in my statement at the beginning of this subthread: Guesstimating the future state(s) of a physical system requires a model, period, full stop, end of story.”
And I addressed that statement earlier and my conclusion-the question about what you can KNOW about the future of this planet-had many other premises to support it.
BG” Ya’ see, this is MY argument that I am making here about the predictive (in)abilities of physical (and now statistical) models, and I’m under no obligation whatsoever to accede to what you think that argument should be.”
Again, basing your argument about what will happen to the climate of this planet, based upon conjectures, assumptions and predictions from models that are KNOWN to be flawed, results in a conclusion that is irrational and illogical in view of the actual EVIDENCE recorded in the geological record of this planet. If what you or anyone else tells me about the planet is in direct opposition to the what the evidence produced by and on the planet tells me about the planet, I’m sorry, but I HAVE to go with what the evidence tells me. Because I value what it tells me more than what you tell me. Sorry. Just how things are.
[snip]
?? Did you type that or did something not meet “the pleasure of Mr. Watts and his designated moderation team.”?
I said “THEN you just used an analogy about predicting the WEATHER in Toronto on a specific date and time to support your argument that we can make reasonable guesses about the future. It DOES support the conclusion that we can make reasonable guesses about what the weather in Toronto will be at a future date. But that is ALL it supports. Do you understand?”
BG said “No, because I can use the same method for temperature in Atlanta too.”
Well then I guess its beyond your ability to understand the difference between the weather which “is the state of the atmosphere at a place (toronto/atlanta) and time (New Years Day, or a range of dates close to it) as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc” and the CLIMATE which is “the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.”
It is illogical to assume that because you can make reasonable guesses about the future weather that you can also make reasonable guesses about the future climate based upon the reasonable guesses you’ve made about the weather. If your mother has predicted the exact duration of every single bout of the flu she’s ever had, do you also then believe she is capable of predicting the exact duration of any other illness that presents symptoms similar to those of the flu?
No it’s not a projection that I secretly think the earth is suffering from an illness so don’t even go there. If anything, I find your thinking suffers from an illness that make or may not be chronic. We shall see.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Aphan
January 5, 2016 12:01 am

Aphan,

Forgive me, you’re right.

Accepted, no worries.

Really? Because its a lot more specific than just asking a question about the future in general….which can mean the future of anything, anywhere.

True. However within the context of this discussion — modelling physical systems — we are naturally limited to a finite number parameters to model. So while it’s logically defensible to say that to accurately predict the future state of Earth we should take into consideration plausible future states of the universe, as a practical matter what’s going on right here in the Solar System is quite enough to have on our plate.

And I addressed that statement earlier and my conclusion-the question about what you can KNOW about the future of this planet-had many other premises to support it.

I answered your question as best I understood how. As there is apparently something I’m not getting, perhaps it’s time for you to state your premises and make an explicit argument.

Again, basing your argument about what will happen to the climate of this planet, based upon conjectures, assumptions and predictions from models that are KNOWN to be flawed, results in a conclusion that is irrational and illogical in view of the actual EVIDENCE recorded in the geological record of this planet.

I don’t agree because I do not think it is irrational to make predictions about the future based on limited knowledge. Same goes for “flawed” models, for I subscribe to the George E. P. Box notion that all models are wrong, but some are useful. You don’t get to choose for me which models I accept as useful or not. OTOH, it’s fine for you to ask me why I think a specific model is useful. Then I believe there is a basis for you to question my logic.
As I mentioned before, I’ve done quite a bit of study on our estimates of past climate states — which necessarily has involved reading some geology. I find no inherent contradiction. Doesn’t mean there isn’t one. You’re going to have to be specific about what you think the flaw is, simply arguing that the geological record contradicts my stated understanding of AGW doesn’t do anything for me.

[snip]
?? Did you type that or did something not meet “the pleasure of Mr. Watts and his designated moderation team.”?

Oh heh, no. Simply means that I clipped some of your comments … old habit from my time on Usenet.

Well then I guess its beyond your ability to understand the difference between the weather which “is the state of the atmosphere at a place (toronto/atlanta) and time (New Years Day, or a range of dates close to it) as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc” and the CLIMATE which is “the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.”

I’m sorry, I don’t follow that at all. The whole point of that exercise was to demonstrate the difference between weather (in this context, the min/max temps on a particular day in a given location) and climate (in this context, the probability that a daily min/max temperature will fall within some statistically determined range over the course of a particular month in a given location).

It is illogical to assume that because you can make reasonable guesses about the future weather that you can also make reasonable guesses about the future climate based upon the reasonable guesses you’ve made about the weather.

I wasn’t guessing future weather …
On the other hand, I could have said in 1871, with 95% confidence, based on observations for the month of December between 1841-1870 that I expect the min temperature on 12/31/2015 to lie between -18.08 and 4.84 degrees Celsius, and the max temperature on the same day to lie between -9.51 and 9.51 degrees Celsius.
… was I? As compared to this …
I think we’d both agree it would have been ridiculous for me to say on New Year’s Day in 1871 that the low temperature in Toronto on New Year’s Eve 2015 would be 0.6 degrees Celsius, and that the high temperature in Toronto on the same day would be 1.8 degrees Celsius with 95% confidence.
… you’re not seeing the difference?

If your mother has predicted the exact duration of every single bout of the flu she’s ever had, do you also then believe she is capable of predicting the exact duration of any other illness that presents symptoms similar to those of the flu?

No of course not. Not least because even “the flu” itself is caused by many different strains of the influenza virus, which are all constantly mutating. And since flu is often accompanied by a secondary bacterial infection due to the immune system being taxed by the viral infection, there are all sorts of possible combinations of those things which may or may not be contracted during or after the viral phase.
The shorter answer is: my mother would not make such a prediction because she knows better than that, and taught me better than to think that way about the flu … and infectious disease in general.
Now, making a prediction about the average duration and/or the expected range of durations for a particular strain of influenza in a substantial population of people is a different story IF there were already a significant number of cases on record from which to compile the statistics …

If anything, I find your thinking suffers from an illness that make or may not be chronic.

Your opinion is noted, but I hardly see how that opinion is relevant to the truth value of my arguments. I could be a certifiably bat$h!t crazy loony toon and still be right.
When you’re ready to get back to me continuing my argument about why I think climate predictions are reasonably useful in lieu of commenting about your findings on my alleged mental condition(s), or how long my cold is going to last, just go ahead and let me know. Ciao for now.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 5, 2016 10:24 am

May I suggest that you pick up a cheap copy of a book called “Global Warming, Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers, A geoscientist looks at the science of climate change” It’s an easy read, VERY clear, loaded with citations, and gives you perspective about how the planet itself changes the climate. From tectonic plate movements, to volcanoes, to the oceans, to the ROCK we live on. Earth science is where I came into the climate debate from. It’s my foundation. And because of what I KNOW and UNDERSTAND about the Earth, the physical planet, it’s so much easier to see the logic fails in trying to think that the AIR controls anything on this rock. Putting the past 150 years of “temperatures” into it’s proper context, which is MILLIONS of years old, one realizes darn quick that in all of the geological physical records-rocks, trees, ice cores, sediment cores, fossils, Co2 has never, not once, been guilty of changing the climate.
But someone, or a group of someone’s, has convinced you that something that has NEVER happened on this planet, CAN/WILL happen in the future. Those people simply cannot understand the evidence that exists, or they haven’t seen it, or they are ignoring it. BASED on the evidence, that people like Mike Mann and Cook and others NEVER talks about, we can KNOW that temperatures have increased FASTER and to a greater degree in the past than they have in the past 150 years. That the “modern temperature record” doesn’t contain it is MEANINGLESS because the earth recorded it, over and over and over again. At no point in the past did HUGE concentrations of Co2 in the atmosphere cause runaway global warming!!! At what point does Co2 get removed as a probability factor?
If you look at Earth’s history, we are currently in a period of the LOWEST concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere that have existed on this planet. THE LOWEST. The earth and it’s system is far more accustomed to higher Co2 than it is lower.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Aphan
January 5, 2016 6:37 pm

Aphan,

May I suggest that you pick up a cheap copy of a book called “Global Warming, Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers, A geoscientist looks at the science of climate change”.

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Alarmists-Skeptics-Deniers-Geoscientist/dp/1937327035
Yes, I have seen this book, but not read it. Unfortunately there is no free preview of the actual text, but Dr. Robinson does provide a summary, to which I have some responses:
From the Author
As a young geology instructor in the 1970s, I informed my students of satellite images showing expanding snow cover in North America compared to previous years. I advised them to remain skeptical of the claims then being made in the popular media that this heralded the beginning of the next ice age. A few years later, sensationalist articles about the coming ice age began to be replaced by others saying the earth was growing dangerously warm and we humans were to blame. Why the continuing exaggerations about climate change I wondered, but duly brought this new scare to the attention of my classes with the same caveat as before. I thought it was just more media hype that would fade as quickly as the recent ice age scare. I was wrong. Instead of fading, global warming alarmism increased.

Being skeptical of claims in literature, especially new ones, is good advice. However, Dr. Robinson is here speaking about popular media coverage, not primary literature. If the global cooling/global warming flip-flop in the 1970s were simply a matter of a capricious media drumming up viewship with sensationalist headlines, I would agree with his warning to take all of it with a grain of salt. Thing is, by the 1970s, AGW theory was already well-established and it was global cooling which was being amplified out of proportion to its support in literature by popular media.
As a geologist and student of earth history, I knew that climate has always changed. Some of the changes had been disastrous, such as the mountains of ice that moved into mid-latitudes during cold phases of the great Pleistocene ice age depopulating millions of square miles. Mostly, however they were just inconsequential changes of a degree or two. The warming we were then experiencing seemed just the latest in a large number minor undulations of climate, not unusual and not unexpected after the frigid temperatures that lasted several hundred years during the recently ended Little Ice Age. Yet, people were on TV acted like climate change was unusual, something that hadn’t happened before. Obviously, they had never taken a historical geology course.
Here’s a global reconstruction of the Pliocene and Pliestocene after Lisiecki and Raymo (2005):comment image
Paper is here: http://lorraine-lisiecki.com/LisieckiRaymo2005.pdf
My comment here is similar to above: if one wants to understand what scientists are saying about science, the best source for it is primary literature — or as close to it as possible — because that’s where the science is being most directly communicated.
For a while, not many people promoted such a view, but the few who did knew how to get attention. And other people were listening. Little did I know a mindset had taken root and started to grow.
A great many people, particularly liberal politicians and most journalists, act as if climate change is odd, strange, extraordinary. Part of this belief system seems to be that yesterday’s climate, the preindustrial climate, was ideal, the best of all possible climates, the way nature intended it to be. It was good because it was natural, and we prospered. But now we have strayed far from the natural way, and with our meddling, have upset the balance. We are the reason climate is changing and since it is not natural, it is bad. Nature gave us a stable climate, an ideal climate, but we messed it up.

I’m sure examples of all those arguments can be found in popular literature and news coverage because I have seen and read similar ones myself. I personally would not make any of the arguments as stated above because they don’t conform to my reading of what is actually argued in literature.
I still have trouble coming to grips with this. Do these people not realize that the preindustrial climate was the Little Ice Age chill? Have they not heard of all the crop failures and famine over large areas of Europe? The glaciers moving down into villages, the frozen rivers, the ice-choked harbors? The year without a summer when snow fell in New England during each summer month? The slow starvation of the Viking villages in Greenland?
Reasonable questions. Perhaps he should ask them …
My answer is that either they do not know these things because they were never exposed to historical geology, or they ignore it in favor of ideology. They either do not know what came before or don’t care.
… or not. His answer is two dichotomous statements in a row, not exactly what I’d expect as the result of asking a broad range of people those sorts of questions.
The new climate alarmism that is an offshoot of the green movement, a movement I understand and in some ways, sympathize with. I became a geologist because I love the grandeur of nature and the outdoors and hate the stifling congestion of cities. However these global warming people turned it all around. Staid and unchanging is not nature’s way. The most basic thing about the earth, the first thing geologists learn, is that the only thing constant in nature is change. It can be at such a languid pace that, even over one’s full lifetime, it’s hard to detect, but it can also be catastrophic. Whether hare or tortoise, geologic change can’t be stopped, yet it seemed to me that’s what global warming alarmists sought.
Curious argument, as I am not aware of any plans being discussed to attempt to halt geologic changes on geological scales of time.
Earth history clearly teaches that a static earth has never existed. Our planet is one of the most active bodies in the solar system. All kinds of things constantly change, including weather patterns and climate. Still, natural change does not preclude the possibility that human activities might also cause change. Perhaps, I thought, my own predisposition toward natural change was preventing me from impartially assessing the global warming theory. Maybe powerful evidence supported it. With this in mind, I began to study the scientific literature. To my surprise, I found very little direct evidence that humans were influencing climate. Most of what was offered as evidence was based on the predictions of computer climate models, rather than actual observed data or experimental results. It was as if a weather forecast saying sunny skies for the weekend had been elevated to a greater importance than the rain that actually fell. What was going on here?
Emphasis mine, because it’s the first argument he’s made here that I 100% agree with, and one that I often make in this very forum.
Geologists apply the principle of uniformity to learn about earth history. It has proven to be a reliable guide for what is likely to happen in the future. For global warming alarmists, instead of the past that is living, it’s the future. All their dire warnings are based on computer climate model predictions of things that might or might not happen.
Well now, that IS an argument that only a geologist could make. Uniformitarianism, as opposed to catastrophism was once a contentious debate in the field. Presently, uniformity is the prevailing thinking in geology and other sciences — essentially that all physical laws now are constant across time and space, and therefore that physical processes can be expected to have occurred (or to occur) at with a similar magnitude and rate in the past (or future) as they do in the present under similar conditions.
Uniformity is, in the broadest sense of the word, a model — a basis for how things are generally assumed to work. And as I have mentioned before, making predictions about the future state(s) of a physical system require a model — in the narrower sense of a discrete set of specific rules which can be uniformly applied across a wide range of input parameters.
Period, full stop, end of story. There is no other way to do it.
To geologists like me, something vital is missing in this procedure, what we know happened in the past. A vast amount of this sort of data is available, but computer models use none of it to churn out their predictions. Real information, won at great cost and effort, is ignored in favor of predictions. This is not how science is supposed to work. I learned during my years in graduate school that many things in science are important, but above all is the data. We must honor the data, treat it impartially, let it lead us where it will, allow it to illuminate our way toward better theories. This is the only path that will lead to the light of real knowledge, real progress. This new method of science elevates computer predictions above real data. If the data doesn’t agree with the computer forecast, then something must be wrong with the data. Better check it again and find out what’s wrong.
Emphasis mine, because the statement is not only ridiculous on the face of it, but also patently false. I only need one example to demonstrate how egregiously wrong it is, but I have several:
1) AR5 WGI devotes an entire chapter (5) to paleoclimate obervations AND modelling: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
2) The NOAA paleoclimate portal devotes a section to paleo modelling: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/paleoclimatology-modeling
Efforts to understand past climate and predict future climate change rely on computer climate models that include the physical processes of the climate system. The Paleoclimatology Program encourages the use of climate models to investigate the past and supports rigorous comparisons between the output from numerical simulations and paleoclimatology data. The World Data Center (WDC) for Paleoclimatology archives climate model input and output files, and serves as a data management center for the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project.
3) The Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project has its own dedicated website: https://pmip.lsce.ipsl.fr/
The aim of the PMIP project is to evaluate climate models under paleoclimate conditions and improve our understanding of past climate changes.
The next few paragraphs don’t offer much else in the way of substance, and after such a wildly inaccurate statement, I’m pretty much out of reasons to continue reading.

AndyG55
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 7:03 pm

So funny that you HAVE to rely on the downward leg of the AMO for all your NH graphs 😉
Going to be even funnier in the next few years as the AMO drops. 😉

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
January 2, 2016 7:06 pm

And that Antarctic mass graph.. that was from Grace, wasn’t it…
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
oh dear, poor Grace. !

mebbe
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 2, 2016 8:29 pm

Brandon,
“Guesstimating the future state(s) of a physical system requires a model, period, full stop, end of story.”
You want us to be sure that you don’t know if we’ve reached a tipping point. We are all sure of that.
You are convinced that models are in the business of “guesstimating”. No argument there.
You say;”There’s a lot more to this physical system to model than just CO2 and surface temperature.”
Here, the question is merely; can you sell that to your pals at AGW Central without them realizing you’ve been hanging with db and the heretics?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  mebbe
January 2, 2016 8:41 pm

mebbe,

We are all sure of that.

Which never ceases to amaze me given all the ink spilt here talking about what “we” don’t know.

Here, the question is merely; can you sell that to your pals at AGW Central without them realizing you’ve been hanging with db and the heretics?

They “sell” me on it in every single paper or IPCC document which properly details the uncertainties in modelled projections.

mebbe
Reply to  mebbe
January 2, 2016 11:15 pm

Brandon
???
It never ceases to amaze you that we are sure that you don’t know if we’ve reached a tipping point?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  mebbe
January 3, 2016 9:01 am

mebbe,
The idea is to not find out for sure.

Reply to  mebbe
January 3, 2016 11:09 am

The idea is to not find out for sure.
I think I know what that’s supposed to mean. But only 1 person knows for sure…
Anyway, this seems to follow:
“Four legs good, two legs bad
Two legs good, four legs, better…”
~ G. Orwell, Animal Farm

It’s all bad — no matter how good things appear to be. Skeptics cannot convince some folks to just calm down and chill. The rational alarmists have already been converted to being skeptics of the “dangerous AGW” hoax. All that are left are the true believers:
“There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that will change the minds, such as they are and what there is of them, of the Global Warming Must Be Real crowd.”
~ A reader’s comment on a physics blog
(No, it wasn’t me.)
Any number of readers here have posted comments saying that they started out as believers in ‘dangerous man-made global warming’, and ‘man-made climate change’, etc. But I have yet to see anyone say they have been convinced, by B. Gates or by anyone similar, that there’s a major ‘man-made’ problem brewing in ‘the climate’.
That confirms my own view that once someone catches the eco-religious virus, there isn’t enough of the effective antidote to cure them.
The antidote of course is a mix of logic, rationality, and common sense — which everyone knows isn’t common at all. (Someone can sound very sensible, but still be wacked out.)
When one of that crowd looks at a century and a half of the flattest global temperatures in the entire geologic record, or the fact that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening (except maybe the fact that global T has been so flat and unchanging for so long), but they still conclude that we’re headed for a climate catastrophe, their conclusion is irrational.
When they look at the alarmist prediction record and find that not one scary prediction has ever happened, but they still conclude that scary predictions are still going to come true due to human CO2 emissions (the original scare upon which all climate alarmism is based), then their conclusion is irrational.
When they look at all the evidence showing that the substantial rise in CO2 has been enormously beneficial and is greening the planet, and they still cannot find evidence of any global harm from the added CO2, but they still preach doom… then their conclusion is irrational.
When alarmists look at the pre-Holocene record and see temperatures change within a decade or two by ten whole degrees or more, and they still conclude that the past century’s ≈0.7ºC wiggle is cause for alarm, their conclusion is plainly irrational.
I could go on, but everyone gets the picture: All the evidence, data, facts, measurements and observations mean nothing at all to those who are emotionally invested in believing in the climate scare.
Fear is a very powerful emotion, as is religion. The alarmist crowd uses their “But what if…” argument constantly to justify their emo-based fear. Their cherry-picking, strawman arguments, appeals to corrupted authorities, noble cause corruption, and all the other false arguments they use are based on emotion, not on observations, facts, and logic. They see a century of almost perfect, enviable, flat global temperatures… and then decide that there’s a catastrophe right around the corner.
You can convince rational folks, whether they’re skeptics or climate alarmists. But you can’t convince the emo-alarmists. Logic, rational arguments, and scientific evidence, and common sense are all impotent against their fears.

Jon
Reply to  mebbe
January 3, 2016 1:54 pm

dbstealey,

Any number of readers here have posted comments saying that they started out as believers in ‘dangerous man-made global warming’, and ‘man-made climate change’, etc. But I have yet to see anyone say they have been convinced, by B. Gates or by anyone similar, that there’s a major ‘man-made’ problem brewing in ‘the climate’.
That confirms my own view …

Did you consider the possibility that those who may have been convinced by B. Gates or anyone similar decided they would be better off spending their time on more scientifically reliable websites?
Personally, I’ve learned a thing or two from Brandon Gates’ comments. He’s much more knowledgeable than most of the frequent commenters here would like to give him credit for. Actually, he’s more knowledgeable about the subject of climate change than I would expect anyone of casual interest to be, which leads me to believe that he spends a great deal of time reading about it. The rest of the regulars here would do well to take him more seriously when discussing scientific research.
It’s always disheartening to see those who claim to understand the importance of evidence and reason intentionally devolve conversations into ad-hom attacks on those they disagree with. It makes a good show for the less informed, but does not make for honest or compelling discussion. I appreciate Gates’ efforts on these forums for being honest, precise, and often entertaining to read. Despite dbstealey and others’ recent assertions, I bet more than a few people have been inspired by Gates’ comments to be more skeptical of what they read on the internet, to ask more questions, and to check the sources. I know I have.

Reply to  Jon
January 3, 2016 3:19 pm

jon writes:
Did you consider the possibility that those who may have been convinced by B. Gates or anyone similar decided they would be better off spending their time on more scientifically reliable websites?
What other site is “more scientifically reliable” than Anthony Watts’ WUWT? This site has won the internet’s Best Science & Technology Weblog Award for the past three years running, and other awards (see the right sidebar). No alarmist blog comes close to having WUWT’s traffic numbers. In fact, all the climate alarmist blogs combined have less traffic than WUWT. And articles and comments here are regularly posted by experts in the field, and in related fields in the hard sciences. You just don’t like the ‘consensus’.
And you’re a B. Gates fanboy. Good for you; different opinions are what makes a market. Gates is also knowledgeable as you said. But he appears to be blind to facts that show there’s nothing unusual or unprecedented happening; that there isn’t a single measurement of AGW, and that the past 150 years has about the most perfect global temperature stability found in the entire global temperature record. How someone can turn those facts into a climate scare is something of a mystery. And you add:
Despite dbstealey and others’ recent assertions…
Speaking for myself, I bend over backward to try and support my position, so it’s far more than mere “assertions”. Assertions are what you’re doing. But I’ll give you a break because you might be new here: state your scientific position, using facts, evidence, observations, and measurements. That’s the right starting point.
We can go from there, and see who is more convincing. Or, you can just sit in the peanut gallery and take sides based on emotion, belief, or whatever motivates you. Me, I’ll go with what Planet Earth is telling us. Because she’s never been wrong yet.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 3, 2016 3:23 pm

“Me, I’ll go with what Planet Earth is telling us. Because she’s never been wrong yet.”
Well she’s not doing what the computer models say she should be doing, so clearly, she’s WRONG now!
*grin*

AndyG55
Reply to  mebbe
January 3, 2016 3:29 pm

“I bet more than a few people have been inspired by Gates’ comments to be more skeptical of what they read on the internet, to ask more questions”
Yep, and the more you look at the data.. the more you become sceptical of his comments. 😉
Now off you go, Jon, and kiss his feet !

Reply to  mebbe
January 3, 2016 4:09 pm

Jon-“Personally, I’ve learned a thing or two from Brandon Gates’ comments.”
Good for you. If we take a poll, I’m sure many posters here would admit that they have as well.
” He’s much more knowledgeable than most of the frequent commenters here would like to give him credit for.” Ad-hom. You have no idea what most of the frequent commenters here would or would not like to do.
” Actually, he’s more knowledgeable about the subject of climate change than I would expect anyone of casual interest to be, which leads me to believe that he spends a great deal of time reading about it.”
He seems fairly well educated on the basics of the climate, but he seems to have no education or knowledge about geology and how the EARTH will or will not respond to climate changes, based upon how the EARTH has changed in the past. It’s a well observed problem in people who focus more fully, or even solely on, the atmosphere of this planet, (the climatology) instead of focusing equally on all of the information we have from all of the “ologies”.
“The rest of the regulars here would do well to take him more seriously when discussing scientific research.”
When BG discusses scientific research, if he sticks to what we CAN know from that research , he is taken seriously. The more he sticks to the evidence, the more seriously he will be taken. We don’t take opinions seriously here. Not his. Not our own. Not yours. If you think we should, please explain why.
“It’s always disheartening to see those who claim to understand the importance of evidence and reason intentionally devolve conversations into ad-hom attacks on those they disagree with. It makes a good show for the less informed, but does not make for honest or compelling discussion.”
Its always been ironic, amusing, perplexing to me when someone brings up how negative and insulting ad-hom attacks are…in the middle of an ad-hom attack on someone else. Like yours here on the “regulars” here, DB, etc. Isn’t your ad-hom argument (which lacks evidence and reason) just as “intentionally devolving this conversation”, dishonest and uncompelling as anyone else’s?
Jon “Did you consider the possibility that those who may have been convinced by B. Gates or anyone similar decided they would be better off spending their time on more scientifically reliable websites?”
It’s a possibility, but it’s really hard to prove because no one here has ever indicated such a thing by posting it here! I can only guess that perhaps that’s why DB said “Any number of readers herehave posted comments saying that they started out as believers in ‘dangerous man-made global warming’, and ‘man-made climate change’, etc. But I have yet to see anyone say they have been convinced, by B. Gates or by anyone similar, that there’s a major ‘man-made’ problem brewing in ‘the climate’.” Instead of saying “I wonder what the possibilities are…..regarding people who no longer post here…who never said anything….”
Yeah, I’m a chops buster, but I tend to only bust the chops of people who engage in illogical, irrational arguments while attempting to make someone else look irrational and illogical. Its a hypocrite thing. It bugs me.

Jon
Reply to  mebbe
January 3, 2016 11:30 pm

Alpan,
I think you are exaggerating my use of ad-homs, but you may want to check your own. Furthermore, the question in the beginning of my email was clearly addressed to dbstealey, who is more than capable of answering it himself, as he has already done. Sort of.
The part of my comment about discussions that should be about evidence and reason devolving into something less was not an argument at all. Do I need to prove with evidence and reason that this is disheartening to me? Do I need to prove that name-calling is not compelling discussion? Do you even disagree with what I said in that part?
You finish your email by opining that my “arguments” are irrational and illogical, and essentially accusing me of hypocrisy. Nice. Stay classy, Alpan.
The rest,
Me defending Gates here does not make him my hero, nor me his fanboy. I appreciate what he does on this website. Simple as that. Seemed to me that there was a lot more ganging up on him in this thread than usual, so I just wanted to drop a reminder that what you think of Brandon is just, like, your opinion, man.
Also, when you guys talk about how important facts, logic, evidence, and so on are here on WUWT, and then I scroll down and see this:
http://i67.tinypic.com/2jai6hc.jpg
Well, it makes it just about impossible to take you seriously.

Reply to  Jon
January 4, 2016 4:50 pm

Jon-
“I think you are exaggerating my use of ad-homs, but you may want to check your own. Furthermore, the question in the beginning of my email was clearly addressed to dbstealey, who is more than capable of answering it himself, as he has already done. Sort of.”
Insinuating that I was exaggerating your use of ad-homs, is the equivalent of adding another ad-hom to your previous ad-homs. Brilliant logic.
I said nothing about dbstealey or his capabilities. What insinuation/logical fallacy caused you to bring either one into your reply to me?
“The part of my comment about discussions that should be about evidence and reason devolving into something less was not an argument at all. Do I need to prove with evidence and reason that this is disheartening to me? Do I need to prove that name-calling is not compelling discussion? Do you even disagree with what I said in that part?”
Nope. Of course not. That is a logical statement. Inserting a logical statement that demonstrates that you DO know the difference between being logical and being illogical, into an overall otherwise illogical and irrational comment only highlights the fact that you know better, but don’t care.
“You finish your email by opining that my “arguments” are irrational and illogical, and essentially accusing me of hypocrisy.”
NOPE. I did not write an EMAIL. I posted on a blog. I finished that post by saying:
“Yeah, I’m a chops buster, but I tend to only bust the chops of people who engage in illogical, irrational arguments while attempting to make someone else look irrational and illogical. Its a hypocrite thing. It bugs me.”
Do you see the difference between what I actually, empirically said AND what you interpreted/insinuated/illogically implied that I said, or do I need to explain that to you as well?
“Nice. Stay classy, Alpan.”
Perfect! You can’t even BE classy while telling me to “stay classy”. You demonstrated again, that you ARE a hypocrite. No one has to bother accusing you of being one.
“Me defending Gates here does not make him my hero, nor me his fanboy. I appreciate what he does on this website. Simple as that. Seemed to me that there was a lot more ganging up on him in this thread than usual, so I just wanted to drop a reminder that what you think of Brandon is just, like, your opinion, man.”
Never said anything that could be LOGICALLY used to imply otherwise. So why are you bringing this up to me?
“Also, when you guys talk about how important facts, logic, evidence, and so on are here on WUWT, and then I scroll down and see this: (ugly Al Gore photo) Well, it makes it just about impossible to take you seriously.”
So when comments are obviously illogical and irrational, you find it just about impossible to take them seriously? GOOD. NO ONE with any real intelligence WOULD or SHOULD take them seriously either. None of the regulars here DO. It does not matter what the TOPIC is: be it a who-like Al Gore or Brandon Gates-or a what-like climate science-all irrational, illogical arguments here are subject to the examination and rebuttal of anyone who cares enough about the topic presented to do so! But if you want to WIN, or be found on the side of a superior conclusion, you can’t accomplish that here with arguments that are just as equally irrational and illogical as your opponents are.
Do you SEE the flaw in your insinuation about “you guys”….”impossible to take seriously” now?
If not, let me clarify further-
There is ZERO empirical evidence that anyone here at WUWT has EVER made the claim that they are (individually) or WE are (collectively here at WUWT) completely and totally rational and logical and fact based at all times, on all topics, no matter what that topic is. SO any CONCLUSION that you can make in regards to that WILL HAVE TO BE based on FLAWED premises like assumptions, insinuations, presumptions and anecdotal or circumstantial evidence.
(Hint…there is no way to win or successfully conclude otherwise)

Reply to  mebbe
January 3, 2016 11:55 pm

jon,
Well, I gave you a chance to discuss facts, evidence, observations, and measurements. But you went off on your tangent and refused to discuss science. Instead, you posted a link to something I had nothing to do with, tarring everyone with your strawman argument. You wrote that this discussion “should be about evidence and reason”. But your screed was all emo, all the time. Thus, jon, you lose.
I would love to debate the evidence for or against the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scam. So far, there’s no credible evidence to support it. But I keep an open mind and if you can produce any measurements quantifying AGW, you may be able to convince me.
Instead, you’re just what other commenters say you are: irrational and illogical. Your dig that my answer to you was “sort of” OK shows that you’ve got nothin’.
Come back when you’ve got some evidence worth debating. Until then, you’re just sitting in the peanut gallery, issuing baseless opinions.

AndyG55
Reply to  mebbe
January 4, 2016 12:13 am

That’s all right Jon..
Nobody takes you seriously either.

Jon
Reply to  mebbe
January 4, 2016 6:17 am

dbstealey,
Well if you declare victory for yourself, then that obviously means you must have “won”. Maybe get a couple others to back you up on it, shouldn’t be too hard to do on this website. Because that’s what’s really important, right? “Winning” arguments.
My initial comment was not about the science of AGW as can be easily gathered from actually reading it. In fact, you have no idea where I stand on AGW because I never took a position. So you implying that my position on climate change is based in emotion or “belief”, saying I “got nothin'”, is in reality based on nothing but your own assumptions about me. It’s nonfactual, illogical, and would never hold water in a real scientific discussion. If I were here to have one with you, dbstealey, you would not be off to a good start, I’ll say that much. But I am not, because I have learned from reading comment threads here that you are not interested in the facts. This makes you impossible to have rational discussion with.
Until we cross paths again, dbstealey, I bid you farewell.
AndyG55,
I actually would have been amazed if it turned out otherwise.

Reply to  Jon
January 4, 2016 10:28 am

jon says:
Because that’s what’s really important, right? “Winning” arguments.
What’s important is eliminating misinformation, personal opinions, deflection, and baseless beliefs from the discussion. You’ve been told to stick with facts and evidence, but as usual you just give your own opinion without any measurements, observations, etc. What good is that on a science site?
You say I’m not interested in the facts — but you have no facts! You still refuse to state your position (although it’s clear to me and others what it is. I have a pretty good idea about your beliefs regarding AGW). Your problem is that you cannot back up your beliefs with measurements or observations.
Next, you say:
If I were here to have one with you, dbstealey, you would not be off to a good start, I’ll say that much.
Now we’re getting somewhere. That’s a challenge. You are saying you’re more knowledgeable. You imply that you can convince me with your facts, evidence, data, and measurements. OK then, get started, jon. Convince me with any facts or evidence you have. Otherwise, your comment is just more psychological projection; you keep imputing your own faults to me. And your impotent chest-thumping is amusing, because so far it’s just another baseless opinion.
You have yet to discuss any science at all. You don’t like the fact that on this site you lose the debate by having nothing. Your baseless assertions are meaningless here.
You end by saying:
…you are not interested in the facts. This makes you impossible to have rational discussion with.
That’s what they used to call a ‘cop-out’. I have repeatedly asked you to engage in a rational, evidence based scientific discussion because contrary to your claims, I am very interested in whatever facts you can find to support your belief system. But you continue to evade that, deflecting as usual onto things that don’t matter. How is that any different from chickening out?
You made the challenge that I’d be in trouble if we ever did get into a discussion of the evidence. So, jon, get me in trouble.
But truth be told, I don’t think you know enough to engage in a factual discussion.
Prove me wrong.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  mebbe
January 4, 2016 10:14 am

Jon,

Actually, he’s more knowledgeable about the subject of climate change than I would expect anyone of casual interest to be, which leads me to believe that he spends a great deal of time reading about it.

Your inferences about the level of my interest and the time I spend reading are probably correct — I would say that my interest in the subject is not casual. I thank you for the compliment about what I seem to know, I sometimes wish I felt the same confidence. My reality is that there is so much I don’t understand and wish I did, and the more I study the worse that problem gets. 🙂
Aphan,

Ad-hom. You have no idea what most of the frequent commenters here would or would not like to do.

A valid point.

He seems fairly well educated on the basics of the climate, but he seems to have no education or knowledge about geology and how the EARTH will or will not respond to climate changes, based upon how the EARTH has changed in the past.

Not a valid argument according to your own stated standard above. As I do know what I have studied and what I have not, I can also tell you that your inference is false. By way of example, I have spent probably about as much time looking at data obtained from here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets
… as I have from here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl
… or here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/
Easily a thousand hours all told over the past 5 years, if not more. Nobody should just take my word for it, however — in the end what it comes down to this: if I have an argument based on data from those sources (or any other source) it is, at a bare minimum, incumbent upon me to cite them and describe my analysis.
Every argument, every single time.

It’s a well observed problem in people who focus more fully, or even solely on, the atmosphere of this planet, (the climatology) instead of focusing equally on all of the information we have from all of the “ologies”.

Those who study paleoclimate demonstrably rely on archaeology, paleontology, glaciology, geology and near-countless other -ologies. Would you argue that more or less than half of paleoclimatologists agree that human activities are having an noticeable warming influence on the planet?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  mebbe
January 4, 2016 11:41 am

dbstealey,

Well, I gave you a chance to discuss facts, evidence, observations, and measurements. But you went off on your tangent and refused to discuss science. Instead, you posted a link to something I had nothing to do with, tarring everyone with your strawman argument.

Here is my first comment on this thread: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/02/24-days-to-al-gores-10-years-to-save-the-planet-and-point-of-no-return-planetary-emergency-deadline/comment-page-1/#comment-2111452
Here is what I believe to be your first rebuttal: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/02/24-days-to-al-gores-10-years-to-save-the-planet-and-point-of-no-return-planetary-emergency-deadline/comment-page-1/#comment-2111540
An excerpt from that post:
—————
For almost 20 years CO2 (“carbon”) has been rising, but global temperatures have been declining — exactly the opposite of what Algore predicted:
http://tiny.cc/y38s7x
Next, we see the usual Brandon Gates cherry-picked propaganda in his comment right below. But here’s what Gates is not showing:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
—————
The tiny.cc link goes to a Wood for Trees plot, the parameters of which are the same as this image which I saved off to my own webspace sometime last year:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Omlo7ioHN_w/VOennahXbCI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/tJ5tB7kdSF4/s1600/CO2%2Bnormalized%2Bvs%2BRSS.png
I do not recall Mr. Gore explicitly arguing that lower tropospheric temperature anomaly as estimated by Remote Sensing Systems using data collected from microwave sounding units carried by satellite in low-earth orbit would rise 1 Kelvin for each 1 ppmv of CO2 added to the atmosphere. Perhaps you’d be so good as to provide a direct quote?
Next, I note that the RSS TLT time series goes back to 1979 …
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fKyeOSi9fM0/VOewnbi9GQI/AAAAAAAAAWg/VHF9fk038dc/s1600/CO2%2Bregression%2Bvs%2BRSS.png
… and that a linear regression of CO2 vs. RSS TLT indicates that over longer intervals of time, we might reasonably expect a 0.007 K rise in temperature anomaly for every 1 ppmv rise in CO2. Of course, even you would be quick to point out that CO2’s radiative effect in the troposphere is not expected to be a linear function of its concentration by volume, but closer to the natural logarithm of its concentration, as you so often illustrate with this nifty plot:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bDBIY5HyQTU/VLdp6N1vPTI/AAAAAAAAARE/r7YFl4uCUm4/s1600/clip_image0062.jpg
An aside: not for the first time, I wonder what “testable, empirical, verifiable measurements” were used to calculate that curve?
That aside aside, thus far we see you doing one blatant cherry-pick of the RSS TLT time series, one strawman on the relationship between temperature and CO2, and one possible strawman on what Mr. Gore actually predicted 10 years ago in his film.
That leaves us with “here’s what Gates is not showing” with respect to global sea ice area. As I’ve already pointed out, my initial post included separate plots for NH and SH estimated sea ice extent, which when added together should roughly equal the combined estimate for global sea ice area. IOW, I didn’t “hide” anything, and rather than admit your erroneous accusation, you chose instead to double-down and further accuse me of being fixated on Arctic ice because I kept bringing it up.
Finally, you end that post with this passage:
—————
Like numerous times before, it will probably rise past the average. But to climate alarmists, every little wiggle indicates impending doom — but only those wiggles that support their belief system. And without any proof at all, they blame human CO2 emissions (only ≈3% of the total) for their negative wiggles. But they go silent when the wiggles go against them.
So my meter pegs whenever Gates posts something:

http://americandigest.org/aabullshitdetect.gif
—————
… which is about as good an example of “tarring everyone with your strawman argument[s]” in lieu of sticking to evidence as any of the several other places in this thread alone that you have made similar statements.
Any time you want to go back to where I started participating on this thread: discussing “facts, evidence, observations, and measurements” (and estimates, of course) you just go ahead and let me know — I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 4, 2016 12:07 pm

Gates,
You quoted the following comment as if I was writing to/about you:
Well, I gave you a chance to discuss facts, evidence, observations, and measurements. But you went off on your tangent and refused to discuss science. Instead, you posted a link to something I had nothing to do with, tarring everyone with your strawman argument…
…You left off the rest of it:
… You wrote that this discussion “should be about evidence and reason”. But your screed was all emo, all the time. Thus, jon, you lose.
Notice the “Thus, jon… ?? You left that part off, and then replied as if I had written it about you. But it’s clear I was writing it about jon.
Kinda disingenuous, Brandon. As usual you set up a strawman argument and then attacked it.
You finished it up by writing:
Any time you want to go back to where I started participating on this thread: discussing “facts, evidence, observations, and measurements” (and estimates, of course) you just go ahead and let me know — I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.
I really can’t unerstand why you would pick such an obvious strawman argument, when it’s so easy to show readers that you’re ethically challenged. Some advice: when you’re trying to pull a fast one like that, pick something where it can’t be proven that you’re being disingenuous. Take my advice or leave it; it’s your credibility that’s taken the hit.
Next, I wasn’t tarring “everyone” with the pegged meter. I wrote: “…my meter pegs whenever Gates posts something”
Anyway, glad I could give you something to do in the middle of the first workday of the week. Good luck finding employment.
And:
“hen-pecking me…”
How else should we deal with Chicken Little? ☺
Finally, I guess jon is your little brother, and he needs you to stick up for him, huh? I was right, as usual. He doesn’t know much.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  mebbe
January 4, 2016 3:14 pm

dbstealey,
This is a recorded message: Any time you want to go back to where I started participating on this thread: discussing “facts, evidence, observations, and measurements” (and estimates, of course) you just go ahead and let me know — I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 4, 2016 8:01 pm

Gates says:
Any time you want to go back to where I started participating on this thread: discussing facts, evidence, observations, and measurements…
First, you just posted a typical strawman argument that allowed me to point it out to everyone, then you dodged the question of producing a verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total natural warming. Add your “Look, a squirrel!” argument to your strawman fallacies.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 4, 2016 8:43 pm

DB,
I have this image in my head of both standing with our arms folded watching Brandon at his desk madly typing away. Without taking my eyes off of him, I lean closer to you and whisper loudly “Do you think he’s going to GET IT this time?” Without taking your eyes off of him, you lean back and whisper loudly “I doubt it”. And we just keep watching…..

Reply to  mebbe
January 5, 2016 3:09 am

B. Gates sez that I…
…refused to discuss science. Instead, you posted a link to something… &etc.
Just becuz I don’t instantly respond to incessant rants, it doesn’t mean I “refuse to discuss science”.
Unlike Gates, I have a good, interesting life, and posting on the internet is only a minor part of it. I’ve never ‘refused’ a challenge, especially from a climate alarmist who’s trying to convert readers to his wacky eco-religion.
If I don’t promptly reply, don’t get the idea that I’m out of good arguments. That’s never the case.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  mebbe
January 5, 2016 10:53 am

dbstealey,

Fine, you just post a verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total natural warming.

Can’t be done since a “fraction” of something is a calcuation based on at least two input values. We can estimate (or “guesstimate” as you like to say) it of course, and have.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bDBIY5HyQTU/VLdp6N1vPTI/AAAAAAAAARE/r7YFl4uCUm4/s1600/clip_image0062.jpg
I repeat: not for the first time, I wonder what “testable, empirical, verifiable measurements” were used to calculate that curve?

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 5, 2016 1:20 pm

I repeat, not for the first time: measurements are data. In science, data is essential. Measurements are necessary to quantify things. Just about everything is quantified; what isn’t? We need measurements to know what we’re quantifying.
THEREFORE: either…
1. AGW does not exist, or
2. AGW is too minuscule to measure.
I think #1 is wrong, but that’s just IMHO. Few scientists think there is zero AGW.
That leaves #2. If it’s #2, then the climate Null Hypothesis has not been falsified because even if AGW exists, it is too small to make an observable difference.
CONCLUSION: No more public money should be wasted on something that is too small to measure.
As a skeptic I’m always ready to change my mind. Just produce measurements quantifying how much AGW there is. Or, show global damage or harm due to the rise in CO2. That’s fair, no?
And of course, any corporation or other private entity can spend all the money it pleases ‘studying climate change’. Just leave the taxpaying public out of the equation.
And:
Can’t be done since a “fraction” of something is a calcuation based on at least two input values.
We already have the existing input value: the Null Hypothesis.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  mebbe
January 5, 2016 8:32 pm

dbstealey,

I repeat, not for the first time: measurements are data. In science, data is essential. Measurements are necessary to quantify things. Just about everything is quantified; what isn’t? We need measurements to know what we’re quantifying.

No dispute. However, as soon as you ask for the fraction of warming attributed to anthropogenic CO2 (or to any number of other anthropogenic effects), you’re doing a calculation. Since all measurements are inherently erroneous, any calculations based on them are necessarily erroneous. All one ever gets when measuring anything is an estimate.
I tend to believe that people who ask the same question over and over and over and over again after it has been explained over and over and over and over again that it is not humanly possible to honestly answer …
… are not honestly looking for an answer. However …

“Can’t be done since a ‘fraction’ of something is a calcuation based on at least two input values.”
We already have the existing input value: the Null Hypothesis.

… another possibility is that they are completely clueless.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 6, 2016 11:49 pm

“I tend to believe that people who ask the same question over and over and over and over again after it has been explained over and over and over and over again that it is not humanly possible to honestly answer …are not honestly looking for an answer. However another possibility is that they are completely clueless.”
So…can we take it you are done asking people here the same questions about climate change over and over and over again when it has been explained to you over and over and over again, as honestly as possible, that it is not currently humanly possible to answer them one way or another? If you ARE honestly looking for an answer, we don’t have it. We aren’t hiding one, nor are we hiding FROM one. Don’t you get that or are you just completely clueless?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  mebbe
January 7, 2016 7:00 am