Guest essay by Monckton of Brenchley
The IPCC published its First Assessment Report a quarter of a century ago, in 1990. The Second Assessment Report came out 20 years ago, the Third 15 years ago. Even 15 years is enough to test whether the models’ predictions have proven prophetic. In 2008, NOAA’s report on the State of the Global Climate, published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, said: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
To the continuing embarrassment of the profiteers of doom, the least-squares linear-regression trends on Dr Roy Spencer’s UAH satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 18 years 6 months, despite a continuing (and gently accelerating) increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, shown on the graph as a gray trace:
Dr Carl Mears’ RSS dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months:
By contrast, the mean of the three much-altered terrestrial tamperature datasets since May 1997 shows a warming equivalent to a not very exciting 1.1 C°/century:
It is now time to display the graph that will bring the global warming scare to an end (or, at least, in a rational scientific debate it would raise serious questions):
The zones colored orange and red, bounded by the two red needles, are, respectively, the low-end and high-end medium-term predictions made by the IPCC in 1990 that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº in the 36 years to 2025, equivalent to 2.78 [1.94, 4.17] Cº/century (page xxiv). The boundary between the two zones is the IPCC’s then best prediction: warming equivalent to about 2.8 C°/century by now.
The green region shows the range of measured global temperatures over the quarter-century since 1990. GISS, as usual following the alterations that were made to all three terrestrial datasets in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference, gives the highest value, at 1.71 C°/century equivalent. The UAH and RSS datasets are at the lower bound of observation, at 1.00 and 1.11 C°/century respectively.
Two remarkable facts stand out. First, the entire interval of observational measurements is below the IPCC’s least estimate in 1990, individual measurements falling between one-half and one-third of the IPCC’s then central estimate.
Secondly, the interval between the UAH and GISS measurements is very large – 0.71 C°/century equivalent. The GISS warming rate is higher by 71% than the UAH warming rate – and these are measured rates. But the central IPCC predicted rate is not far short of thrice the UAH measured rate, and the highest predicted rate is more than four times the UAH measured rate.
The absolute minimum uncertainty in the observational global-temperature measurements is thus 0.71 C°/century, the difference between the UAH and GISS measured warming rates. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not possible to be sure that any global warming has occurred unless the warming rate is at least 0.71 C° century. On the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, the farthest one can go back in the data and yet obtain a rate less than 0.71 C° is August 1993.
In short, the Pause may in reality be as long as 22 years 5 months – and the more the unduly politicized keepers of the terrestrial records tamper with them with the effect of boosting the rate of warming above the true rate the more they widen the observational uncertainty and hence increase the possible length of the Pause.
In 1995 the IPCC offered a prediction of the warming rates to be expected in response to various rates of increase in CO2 concentration:
The actual increase in CO2 concentration in the two decades since 1995 has been 0.5% per year. So there should have been 0.36 C° global warming since then, equivalent to 1.8o C°/century, as shown by the single red needle above.
Once again the graph comparing observation with prediction displays some remarkable features. First, the IPCC’s 1995 prediction of the warming rate to the present on the basis of what has turned out to be the actual change in CO2 concentration over the period since 1995 was below the entire interval of predictions of the warming rate in its 1990 report.
Secondly, all five of the principal global-temperature datasets show warming rates below even the IPCC’s new and very much lower predicted warming rate.
Thirdly, the spread of temperature measurements is wide: 0.38 C°/century equivalent for UAH, up to 1.51 C°/century equivalent for GISS, a staggeringly wide interval of 1.17 C°/century. The GISS warming rate over the past two decades is four times the UAH warming rate.
Fourthly, the measured warming rate has declined compared with that measured since 1990, even though CO2 concentration has continued to increase.
So to the 2001 Third Assessment Report. Here, the IPCC, at page 8 of the Summary for Policymakers, says: “For the periods 1990-2025 and 1990to 2050, the projected increses are 0.4-1.1 C° and 0.8-2.6 C° respectively.” The centennial-equivalent upper and lower bounds are shown by the two red needles in the graph above.
Once again, there are some remarkable revelations in this graph.
First, both the upper and lower bounds of the interval of predicted medium-term warming, here indicated by the two red needles, have been greatly reduced compared with their values in 1990. The upper bound is now down from 4.17 to just 3.06 C°/century equivalent.
Secondly, the spread between the least and greatest measured warming rates remains wide: from –0.11 C°/century equivalent on the RSS dataset to +1.4 C°/century equivalent on the NCEI dataset, an interval of 1.51 C°/century equivalent. Here, as with the 1990 and 1995 graphs, the two satellite datasets are at the lower bound and the terrestrial datasets at or close to the upper bound.
Which datasets are more likely to be correct, the terrestrial or the satellite datasets?
The answer, based on the first-class research conducted by Anthony Watts and his colleagues in a poster presentation for the Fall 2015 meeting of the American Geophysical Union, is that the satellite datasets are closer to the truth than the terrestrial datasets, though even the satellite datasets may be suffering from urban heat-island contamination to some degree, so that even they may be overstating the true rate of global warming. The following graph shows the position:
NOAA’s much-altered dataset (J. Karl, prop., say no more) appears to have overstated the true warming rate by some 60%. Watts et al. determined the true warming rate over the continental United States by a sensible and straightforward method: they adopted as normative a standard for the ideal siting and maintenance of temperature monitoring stations that had been independently drawn up and peer reviewed, and then they applied that standard to all the stations in the contiguous United States, excluding all stations that did not comply with the standard. The result, in blue, is that from 1979-2008 the true rate of warming over the continental U.S. was not the 3.2 C°/century equivalent found by NOAA, nor even the 2.3 C°/century equivalent found by UAH, which keeps a separate record for the 48 states of the contiguous U.S., but just 2.0 C°/century equivalent.
On this evidence, the satellites are far closer to the mark than the terrestrial datasets.
Thirdly, the measured rate of warming has again fallen, directly in opposition to the continuing (and gently accelerating) increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and in anthropogenic forcings generally.
This inexorably widening divergence between prediction and reality is a real and unexplained challenge to the modelers and their over-excited, over-egged predictions. The warming rate should be increasing in response not only to past forcings but also to the growth in current anthropogenic forcings. Yet it has been declining since the mid-1980s, as the following interesting graph shows:
At no point has the rate of global warming reached the lower bound of the interval of global warming rates predicted by the IPCC in 1990:
Displaying the three prediction-vs.-reality graphs side by side shows just how badly off beam have been the official predictions on the basis of which governments continue to squander trillions.
The graphs show between them a failure of prediction that is nothing less than abject. The discrepancies between prediction and observation are far too great, and far too persistent, and far too contrary to the official notion of high climate sensitivity, to be explained away.
The West is purposelessly destroying its industries, its workers’ jobs, its prosperity, its countryside, and above all its scientific credibility, by continuing to allow an unholy mesalliance of politicians, profiteers, academics, environmental extremists, journalists and hard-left activists to proclaim, in defiance of the data now plainly shown for all to see for the first time, that the real rate of global warming is “worse than we thought”. It isn’t.
Lord Monckton, have you ever tried to identify a CO2 signal? The problem I see with all the Climate Science is that they focus on average warming. CO2 impacts warmning through trapping radiated heat from the earth. Therefore the only identifiable warming due to CO2 would be at night, when the earth is cooling. During the daytime visible light greatly overwhelmes anything CO2 could even hope to do. Record high temperatures are never caused by CO2, trapping heat can never raise the temperature above the temperature of the radiating body. CO2 in other words can only slow cooling, it can never warm something above the temperature that already exists. Insulation doesn’t warm, it slows cooling. The most likely Co2 signals would be over the dry deserts and dry antarctica, where H2O has been removed from the equation. The CO2 signal would be a relative warming of night relative to the daytime. Is there any data showing that deserts have been cooling less with increases in CO2? Has the spread between day and nightime temperatures been narrowing? Is the slope of peak nightime temperatures VS peak daytime temperatures been increasing? Is there any evidence that areas with a dry atmosphere have seen nighttime temperatures increasing? That would be an interesting study. A graph of Sahara/death valley/Antarctica night time temperatures vs atmosperic CO2 would be a good study.I would have thought that that experiment would have been the first study by the climate alarmists to prove thier point.
Antarctica is not co-operating! It has been cooling for the whole UAH satellite record. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/23/polar-puzzle-now-includes-august-data/
And for the reason for this, see:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
“How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica”
“For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far.”
You’ll never see any local difference effects from CO2 warming. The GHG forcing is about 2 W/m2. That is enough to warm the whole column above of air at about 0.01°C/day, if that were all it did. That doesn’t give an ECS – most of the heat actually ends up in the ocean. But it doesn’t warm just that column; air doesn’t stay still. The wind is blowing through all the time. The heat is redistributed much too fast for differences in forcing to show.
This is a “Just So” story.
Not sure that is true at all. H2O masques the impact of CO2 in many areas. With or without CO2, the same amount of heat would be absorbed, H2O simply saturates the GHG effect. H2O certainly shows localized effects. If in fact CO2 did cause any warming, it certainly would show localized warming where it is the dominant GHG, given that CO2 is evenly distributed around the world. While areas with H2O may not warm due to the additional CO2 because it those areas already are saturated, the areas with nothing but CO2 should show an increase with additional CO2. If that isn’t the case, then there is a serious problem with the GHG theory. Why wouldn’t an increase in CO2 not result in warming if in fact the GHG effect is real? And is the local area only has CO2 as its GHG, why wouldn’t it show warming? Once again, CO2 is a constant. Any increase in the constant should shift the curve upward.
co2islife.
“CO2 in other words can only slow cooling, it can never warm something above the temperature that already exists.”
This is incorrect. CO2 does cause warming by modifying the heat balance from energy coming in, and energy going out.
You are correct about one thing. Nights are warming faster.
Actually, the excitation-deexcitation collisions between CO2 molecules and photons in its principal absorption bands emit heat directly, as though a tiny radiator had been turned on. it is by this method that the atmosphere is warmed. However, determining how much warming will result from the sum of all such collisions is an extremely complex question, and it is evident that the models that predicted high climate sensitivity were wrong.
If and when warming resumes (theory leads us to expect that eventually it will), the reduction in warm-to-cold differentials, of which the more rapid warming at night is an instance, will be likely to have the effect of reducing storminess, especially in the extratropics. One foreseeable consequence is that the infestation of useless windmills will serve to slow storm systems down, causing precipitation events to become more severe.
HT sez:
CO2 does cause warming by modifying the heat balance from energy coming in, and energy going out.
Aren’t assertions great? Anyone can make them. No validation needed.
I am going to assert that a warmer world will be a wetter world, and a warmer and wetter world with more CO2 will lead to an explosion in agricultural productivity.
Show me any example where in a desert with no wind to bring in heat that the nighttime temperature is ever greater than the daytime temperature. Just show me one single example where you can show me that the air is of a greater temperature than the radiating body. Just one.
Correction, Nights aren’t “warming,” they are cooling less. The entire AGW theory is based upon visible light warming the earth during the day (incoming radiation which is tranparent to CO2), and then CO2 trapping a small fraction of the outgoing IR radiation between 13µ and 18µ. The very fact that people beleive that by trapping 10% of the IR spectrum can warm something above the temperature of the radiating body is beyond me. Somehow energy must be created somewhere somehow. This chart alone should give everyone pause as to the AGW theory, as should simple MODTRAN calculations where H2O is introduced to the atmpsphere.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum.jpg
Monckton of Brenchley.
“One foreseeable consequence is that the infestation of useless windmills will serve to slow storm systems down, causing precipitation events to become more severe.”
I have not heard this one before – what an imagination you have.
Monckton of Brenchley – I have come to the same conclusion as you about predictions by climate models and have suggested that the entire modeling operation be shut down. They have never been able to get any of their predictions right since Hansen introduced climate models in 1988. He had three versions, A, B, and C. A was “business as usual,” meaning an attempt to track coming real temperatures until 2019. The other two were “guess what” models showing benefits of emissions control. By 2005 his attempt to predict real temperature was already 0.7 degrees higher than observed reality and was still going up. They have had 27 years by now to improve on Hansen, have graduated to supercomputers and million-line code, and still their predictions are widely off the mark. Unfortunately, they pretend that these results mean something, give them to politicians who accept them as scientific truth, and they get used in making climate policy. Since climate data do contain noise it interferes with understanding of the actual temperature trends that climate follows. As a result, some of your temperature graphs are right and some are wrong because you are not aware of the existence of a step warming that starts in 1999. In three years it raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then came to a stop in 2002. It is not greenhouse warming but has an oceanic origin, related to the large amount of warm water carried by the super El Nino of 1998 that just departed. As a result, all of the twenty-first century is warmer than the twentieth, except for the super El Nino of 1998. No fitted curve should pass across the dividing line established by the step warming. Even Hansen could see the difference by looking at the first decade of the twenty-first century and quickly pronounced the temperature rise as the work of greenhouse warming. The satellite era begins in 1979 and from that point to the beginning of the super El Nino there exists a hidden hiatus. It is hidden only by official ground-based temperature curves but visible in satellite curves and visible even in Anthony Watts’ corrected ground-based curves. There is no temperature rise during this period but you don’t know this because it has been covered up by a fake warming they call “late twentieth century warming.” I discovered it in 2008 and even put a warning about it into my book in 2010. GISS, NCDC and HadCRUT3 are all involved in this plot as traces of common computer processing they share in their publicly available temperature curves testify. As a reault of this arrangement, the super El Nino sits between two hiatuses, one in the eighties and nineties and clearly visible in satellite (but not ground-based) data, and the current one that starts with the twenty-first century. The super El Nino itself is not part either one but behaves as though it belongs to the current hiatus. By accident, both the current hiatus and the hidden one in the eighties and nineties are both 18 years long. Oh, one more thing. During a hiatus the greenhouse effect stops working. The time taken up by a hiatus must be subtracted from the time that the greenhouse effect can use.
Mr Arrak is referring to what is known as the “Singer Event”, after Professor Fred Singer, who first pointed out that there had been little warming from 1979-1997 and none from 2001 to date, and that just about all the warming that has arisen occurred from 1997-2000, peaking with the great el Nino.
I wrote a column about the Singer Event some years ago.
It does not alter the fact that the usual suspects simply use linear-regression trends without getting into complications of that kind, however interesting. My limited ambition in these postings is to demonstrate that, even by their own methods and using their own data, even after it was tampered with, the predicted warming rates have not occurred, a fact which – to any rational observer – would raise serious questions about why the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.
Indeed. We’re all here to learn; I certainly don’t know much.
How Reliable are Satellite Temperatures?
Dennis Horne,
Andy Dessler lives off the government’s global warming scare, so it’s not unexpected that he would try to denigrate satellite data. Another commenter wrote this a few days ago:
…satellite data has…
(1) the most uniform global coverage
(2) the advantage of minimizing/ignoring localized temperature artifacts
(3) undergone more scrutiny than any other dataset
(4) been the most transparent with data and methodology
(5) been essentially independently-verified by the analysis of multiple organizations (RSS and UAH) which at times have been somewhat “rivals” at odds with each other.
Why would you use anything else for 1979-present (and future)?
And satellite data has been coroborrated by seventeen thousand radiosonde balloon measurements, which show the same flat temperature trends.
Lately here we’ve seen some attempts to claim that satellite data is questionable. But it is the most accurate global temperature database in existence, far better than any land based records. Satellites are very expensive to launch and maintain. Why would successive governments spend that money if the data was wrong? And both RSS and UAH are closely scrutinized by each other because they are rivals.
The attacks on satellite temperature data all come from people who feel threatened by the failure of their ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ predictions. If you understand human nature, you will understand their motivations.
Until and unless satellite data can be shown to be wrong, it will remain the gold standard of global temperature measurements. No one has shown it’s wrong yet.
Arno,
You write “During a hiatus the greenhouse effect stops working.
This cannot be. If the greenhouse effect came to a full stop, we’d have similar temperatures as the moon has. Please explain
“The IPCC published its First Assessment Report a quarter of a century ago, in 1990”
Jesus … I remember NOBODY gave a sh** about it, in those olden days. The Iron curtain just had fallen, everybody was confident in a new happy era, without fear of a nuclear war. Commies were aghast.
Nostalgia …
dbstealey, Bartemis
I wouldn’t visit your sandpit without a bucket and spade and the right answers.
Incidentally, stopping energy escaping a system has the same effect as adding it. Which is why lagging your hotwater tank reduces your bill. Isn’t it.
And it’s well known changes in temperature cause changes in CO2. It’s equally well known that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in temperature.
World governments accept the climate scientists and scientific societies are right. The only thing that will change that is the temperatures dropping and the ice growing.
We’d all welcome that. But it ain’t happening.
You might suppose that you know that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in temperature, but you forgot to impart that knowledge to Mother Nature.
CO2 took after World War II, but the planet cooled so much over the next 32 years that scientists thought they could see the ice sheets once again looming over the northern horizon. Then, quite accidentally, a continued monotonous rise in CO2 coincided with natural global warming from 1977-96. Since then CO2 increase has if anything accelerated, without any gain in global temperature.
So, while CO2 is a GHG, its increase in the air doesn’t necessarily correlate with rising atmospheric temperature in the real world climate system. Indeed for 50 of the past 70 years and counting, it has not done so.
Sorry. Meant took off after WWII, the Big One.
“Incidentally, stopping energy escaping a system has the same effect as adding it.”
When there is a persistent inflow. But, you have not established that the aggregate response is to significantly modulate the flow. You have merely made a leap of faith.
“It’s equally well known that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in temperature.”
Sorry, no. It is not known that, in the present climate state, an incremental increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration necessarily results in an incremental rise in temperature. It is a conjecture.
“World governments accept the climate scientists and scientific societies are right.”
Argumentum ad populum.
“The only thing that will change that is the temperatures dropping and the ice growing.”
Antarctic ice has been growing for some time. Arctic ice has been rebounding for 5 years now. And, the RSS satellite temperature set shows a decline over the past 18 years, 8 months. Get ready for La Nina’s revenge.
Re. the argumentum ad populum, not only is this assertion a logical fallacy, but governments have a vested interest in higher taxes and more control. Nor do all regimes buy into the scam.
Dennis Horne says:
…stopping energy escaping a system has the same effect as adding it… an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in temperature.
Well, you’ve just falsified the CO2 conjecture.
And:
World governments accept…
…money for the ‘man-made global warming hoax.
And:
…temperatures dropping and the ice growing. We’d all welcome that.
Speak for yourself. Warm is good. Cold kills.
“We’d all welcome that. But it ain’t happening.”
I know that there are plenty of people who would not welcome that.
Being proven wrong at this stage will be career death for a lot of people, among other reasons.
As for cooling…stay tuned.
The rotund female has yet to exercise her vocal cords.
World governments believe the scientists and accept the science. I call that a victory for science and common sense.
I call it Orwellian.
Stalinist. Lysenkoism redux.
World governments believe…
So do you. And some folks believe in the Tooth Fairy.
The CO2=AGW conjecture is very weak, despite being investigated for over a century. Any effect is simply too small to measure, making it a complete non-problem.
That’s science. But then there’s politics…
Before the 1980s, hypothetical AGW was considered beneficial, as indeed natural global warming since the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum has been. Arrhenius a century ago and Callendar in the 1930s thought that AGW would be a great boon. The already failed hypothesis was also considered a good thing when revived in the 1970s, in order to counteract then worrisome global cooling.
More CO2 is also a good thing all on its own, having greened the planet remarkably since 1945.
WTF does “World governments” even mean ?
It feels like wolves herding sheep to me.
Imagine the One World Order Hitler would have implemented. Imagine Rome under Tiberius, Caligula and Nero. Imagine Russia under Stalin, and N Korea under Kim Jung. Imagine France under Robespierre. Why people love to empower Governments over the indivudual is way way way beyond me. Under a One World Government, who would be there to stop it when it went wrong?
Mr. Horne,
There is no evidence that carbonated oxygen has ever caused any warming of the earth’s “atmosphere”: none whatever.
If you have any such evidence, perhaps you would be so kind as to give it. Thank you in anticipation.
WL
The selective moral outrage is laughable. A 2 year old could spot the issues with ground measurements. NASA, and NOAA and others have published temperature graphs far before the Satellite data, and anyone can compare what was published in the past and what is published now. The IPCC replaced its original temperature graph with the Hockeystick. The Climategate emails detail outright fraud in the temperature reconstructions, and these people are attacking satellite data? What a joke. Anyway, this video should backfire. You have insiders claiming fraud in the temperature reconstructions. You have Michael “blame others of what you are guilty of” Mann, attacking the Satellite Data. There should be a Congressional investigation into both data sets, tested with double blind methods to get to the truth. These climate “scientists,” by shooting in the tent, have exposed that there is outright corruption in the field of climate science. This needs to be investigated, and Michael Mann provides the justification. Clearly something is amiss in the field of climate “science.”
https://youtu.be/UVMsYXzmUYk
Peter Sinclair, AKA: “potholer” is a serial propagandist like John Cook. He has no clue about real science.
These rent-seeking scientists are attacking satellite data because it falsifies their hoax. They all avoid the fact that radiosonde balloon data shows the same flat trend as satellites.
By the alarmist cult’s own argument, it isn’t the global temperature that matters, it is the trend: is the planet warming, cooling, or what? Satellites and balloon data show the trend is flat:
The satellites and radiosonde data is in agreement. Dessler, Sinclair, and most of the other alarmist scientists are lying. For money. Big surprise, huh?
That is the response I was hoping for, and why there needs to be an investigation. I want to see the people like Michael Mann defending the ground measurements and adjustments, while claiming that BOTH Sattellite and Balloon measurements are incorrect. That is the smoking gun trial I would like to see to put all this nonsense to bed.
Both data sets can’t be right. One set of data is confirmed by another, and the third is not. In real science the confirmation tips the scale. BTW, no independent researcher before Michael Mann ever reconstructed a hockeystick, his was the first that rejected all temperature reconstructions before him. No one would ever be able to reconstruct the Hockeystick when simply given raw data. His efforts to “hide the decline” and “nature trick”, and his ability to pressure and collude with other researchers is unique to his efforts. They could never be independently reproduced.
WUWT, would you commission a series or articles where Dr Spencer and Christy can refute these claims? I’d like to know the truth. Was the phase off, and are they still using data that hasn’t adjusted for that issue?
https://youtu.be/UVMsYXzmUYk
co2islife,
If you’ll notice, Dr. Christy’s comment was carefully cherry-picked to leave the impression Peter Sinclair intended. Same with the other honest scientists.
The only question that needs to be asked is whether the trend in global temperature is rising fast, as Michael Mann claims. But Mann also says that 2015 was the “hottest year EVAH!
But look at the satellite (RSS) chart below. We see that 2015 was far from the warmest. Conclusion: Michael Mann is lying.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9549-Jun.-17-21.12.gif
Clearly one must be lying, but are the challenges about RSS valid? Is there truly a problem with the data that hasn’t been fixed?
co2islife,
Look at the chart. Even if satellite temps were all off by some small fraction of a degree, how can Mann claim that 2015 is the hottest year ever?
Mann attempted to erase the LIA and the MWP. You’re still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? Hey, maybe all those women were lying about Bill Cosby, too…
@ur momisuglyCO2is life,
Just look at the explanations given by the video’s various warmist spokesmen. Are they speaking the truth, as you understand it? For example, watch Carl Mears @ur momisugly~5:00 in the video… he says that “the pause” is counted starting in 1998 because of the huge El Nino induced temp upswing, i.e. to purposely mislead- make a pause where none exists. We know that isn’t true. There are far too many threads here at WUWT which cover that topic thoroughly, to fall for that mischaracterization. The pause starts now and goes backwards until it doesn’t work anymore. That’s just one of the many inaccuracies in the testimony of the people in this video.
You might notice that the speakers never go so far as to say that the satellite data is wrong, just that errors had been made in past (now corrected) and they attempt to make it sound like the satdat is unreliable.
This video repeatedly excerpts the recent Senate hearings and shows the partial testimony of a US Admiral, tasked with determining if climate change is “real”. When the Admiral was prompted by a couple of Dem. Senators, the Admiral did not state that there is a problem with the satellite data. He went on and on about how difficult the problem is, as if he were trying to get the listener to infer that the problems were insurmountable, or led to bad conclusions, but he would not cross that line into saying the satdat was not up to snuff, not the best data we have. He repeatedly would not go there, speaking an untruth. He DID NOT say the satellite data, or derived conclusions were wrong.
There are too many inaccuracies made by the speakers… too many to view them as anything other than an attempt to mislead the viewer — to promote the warmist agenda.
However you did not show all of 2015 since the slope is no longer negative from January and the last few months were missing.
With all due respect, you really should update your graph to show RSS was the third warmest in 2015. With mean of 5 and a start in May, you get the following:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.3/mean:5/plot/rss/from:1997.3/trend
☺
Werner,
You’re right. I had saved that screencap in a folder, and it’s not quite all of last year. This one is, and 2015 is still not “the hottest ever” as Mann said. It looks like only the 3rd or 4th warmest year.
It is third in both RSS and UAH6.0beta4.
Here are the top 14 in RSS including 2015:
1 1998 0.550
2 2010 0.468
3 2015 0.358
4 2005 0.331
5 2003 0.320
6 2002 0.315
7 2014 0.254
8 2007 0.252
9 2001 0.247
10 2006 0.232
11 2009 0.218
12 2013 0.215
13 2004 0.202
14 2012 0.183
Here are the top 14 in UAH6.0beta4 including 2015:
1 1998 0.482
2 2010 0.340
3 2015 0.266
4 2002 0.213
5 2005 0.200
6 2014 0.184
7 2003 0.184
8 2007 0.162
9 2013 0.137
10 2006 0.116
11 2001 0.115
12 2009 0.100
13 2004 0.078
14 1995 0.068
There is easily demonstrated evidence of temperatrure adjustments.
Here are more
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
Thanks for your responses. You’ve totally convinced me my judgement is sound: more CO2 causes Earth to retain more energy. We can just hope a few degrees of warming is all we get and we manage to reduce CO2 emissions.
I’m sure you are ready to share the life choices you’ve made, that might affect the climate ?
Dennis,
If you believe this, then how do you explain the fact that for 50 of the past 70 years, during which time CO2 has increased monotonously, the planet cooled or its temperature has been flat? And even during the 20 years of slight gain, global average temperature, however measured, fluctuated widely and fell pronouncedly in a number of years.
Why do I believe it? Because I believe the science. Why do I believe the science? Because, in the long run, the balance of informed opinion is what matters. And what is the balance of informed opinion? Nearly every climate scientist, informed scientist and scientific society on the planet is persuaded the emission of CO2 is causing Earth to retain more energy. Changing the climate. That is the reality. There is no substantive error. No fraud. No conspiracy.
In the end it’s a judgement. I don’t believe 9/11 WTC was a controlled demolition, nor fluoridation and ‘chemtrails’ are mind control, nor creationism nor intelligent design, because none makes any sense to me.
I understand the relationship between energy/heat and temperature. I can see the difficulties in detecting and measuring such a vast and complex system. I know from experience how easy it is to argue the jigsaw doesn’t show the true picture because some pieces (of evidence) are frayed and others are missing.
Of course it is possible the science is wrong. What would it take to show us? A well-informed genius with good science. The door is open.
Dennis Horne,
Look up “Confirmation Bias”. Your comment is riddled with it.
Why do I believe it? Because I believe the science. Why do I believe the science? Because, in the long run, the balance of informed opinion is what matters. And what is the balance of informed opinion? Nearly every climate scientist, informed scientist and scientific society on the planet is persuaded the emission of CO2 is causing Earth to retain more energy. Changing the climate. That is the reality. There is no substantive error. No fraud. No conspiracy.
In the ends it’s a judgement. I don’t believe 9/11 WTC was a controlled demolition, nor fluoridation and ‘chemtrails’ are mind control, nor creationism nor intelligent design, because none makes any sense to me.
I understand the relationship between energy/heat and temperature. I can see the difficulties in detecting and measuring such a vast and complex system. I know from experience how easy it is to argue the jigsaw doesn’t show the true picture because some pieces (of evidence) are frayed and others are missing.
Of course it is possible the science is wrong. What would it take to show us? A well-informed genius with good science. The door is open.
Dennis Horne,
Posting twice like that can’t be a mistake, can it? They’re 4 minutes apart. And we get what you “believe” because you use that word 3 times in the first line.
You say:
There is no substantive error. No fraud. No conspiracy.
You’re obviously new to this. It’s been established beyond any reasonable doubt that there’s been plenty of fraud, and the conspiracy was self-admitted repeatedly in the Climategate email dumps. You could read The Hockey Stick Illusion by Montford, available on the right sidebar. But I doubt you will, because of your belief.
Belief is a hard thing to change. It is the antithesis of an open mind. Tell a Jehovah’s Witness he’s got it wrong. See what he says. Your belief is like that. No facts, observations, evidence, data, or lack of measurements of what you think must be happening can change your belief.
The past hundred plus years has been a true “Goldilocks” global temperature century. The earth is currently at the colder end of global temperatures. It’s been up to 8ºC warmer in the past and even more, repeatedly, with no ‘climate catastrophe’. In warmer times the biosphere flourished with life and diversity.
But you simply discard every fact that contradicts the “dangerous AGW” (DAGW) narrative — and there are a lot of them. Instead, you put your trust in people who have been caught admitting that they control the climate peer review / journal system, and if it’s threatened by contrary facts they have no problem “redefining what peer review means”. They brag about their expense paid holiday conferences, and conspire to avoid paying taxes. You trust politicians, and the media. But you don’t have any confidence in satellite or balloon measurements.
You believe because there’s comfort in your belief. Dr. Michael Crichton nailed it in this article:
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs imbibe.
Believers aren’t scientific skeptics; the two don’t go together. I have much respect for people with any ethical belief system. But we’ve seen that most believers in the “dangerous AGW” hoax who comment here tend to be somewhat hypocritical. For example, ‘u.k.(us)’ asked you:
I’m sure you are ready to share the life choices you’ve made, that might affect the climate?
In other words, have you given up the use of the fossil fuels that you’re convinced are leading to a climate catastrophe?
Whenever someone is asked that question here, they either don’t respond, or they try to justify why it’s OK for them to use evil fossil fuels. Some explain that they ride a bicycle, or use solar panels. But they’re just rationalizing. They still use plenty of fossil fuel products.
You won’t get the West to stop using fossil fuels, and the East will keep ramping up. So what’s your answer, assuming that you, too, will keep burning fossil fuels? Do you really believe what you say? Or is it just easier to bask in your belief, and not have to think?
Questioning the climate alarmist narrative is the hard way. It’s difficult to go against the flow and not accept preconceived media assertions; to think for yourself, to question everything. Lots of folks still take it easy and assume that what a ‘scientist’ says must be true, because scientists aren’t like other people. They’re special. They would never lie for money, or status, or advancement. They just wouldn’t. Right?
” Because I believe the science.”
No you don’t. You believe in abdicating your own capacity for reasoning to those who have the imprimatur of those in power. You’re a sheep.
“Because, in the long run, the balance of informed opinion is what matters.”
No, in the long run, reality matters. And, in the real world, consensual scientific opinion has often been dead wrong. It has generally sorted itself out in the long run, but sometimes, that run has been very long, indeed.
[Comment deleted. Identity thief post. ~mod.]
[nope, sorry, you are wrong, and wrong again -mod]
Shades of Al Capone taunting Eliot Ness.
Dear “mod”
…
You posted: “[nope, sorry, you are wrong, and wrong again -mod]”
….
First of all, please don’t confuse financial employment fraud with scientific fraud. These are two different animals.
Secondly, I suggest that if you wish to reply to my comment please post under an identifiable name so that you can’t be labeled as an “anonymous coward”
[Reply: this (other) moderator did some investigating and found that in fact, you are an identity thief who has stolen the real Michael Palmer’s name and is posting under it. As usual when that happens, you have wasted all the time spent composing and posting your comments, because they are deleted now except for this one. David, you need to get a life, or a girlfriend, or a job. Or something. ~mod.]
The climate has been studied for a long time. Large numbers of scientists are studying it now. The evidence from different approaches is Earth is retaining more energy. There is a broad consensus. That is reality.
It doesn’t matter any more what the deniers believe or the rigmarole they write on blogs. They can’t persuade the climate scientists and informed scientists and scientific societies. The only people who listen are themselves. They’ve lost the scientific debate. Those who deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the importance of greenhouse effect are regarded as nutters, even by sceptical climate scientists.
All deniers are doing is making it harder to make rational decisions about what we do.
Best to just admit you’re wrong so we can get on with it:
[Snip. “Potholer” (Peter Sinclair) videos are not welcome on this site. Please do not post any Sinclair videos here again. ~mod.]
NOTE. My last post did not appear, so I posted it again. Both posts disappeared without trace. Then both appeared. Fortunately you don’t have to read posts. Of course I know you will. Got to feed the hobby horse…
Dennis Horne, may I fix your first paragraph? Thank you:
The
climate hasepicycles have been studied for a long time. Large numbers of scientists are studyingitthem now. The evidence from different approaches isEarth is retaining more energyepicycles are proof that the sun circles the earth. There is a broad consensus. That is reality.Your next paragraph is contradicted by so many examples that it’s clear your belief is simply eco-religion. For example, Prof. Richard Lindzen is an internationally esteemed climatologist, with twenty dozen peer reviewed papers to his name. He headed M.I.T.’s atmospheric sciences department. And he flatly disputes the ‘dangerous AGW’ nonsense that you believe in. And the original climatologist, H.H. Lamb, produced extensive studies showing that the current ‘climate’ (global temperatures) are unusually benign. But Michael Mann came along and tried to erase Lamb’s LIA and MWP reconstructions. And you believe Mann??
I could give you dozens of similar examples, but I already know your reaction. Your mind is made up and closed tighter than a submarine hatch.
Regarding your belief in the mythical “consensus”, that has been so thoroughly debunked that it’s embarassing to anyone who still mentions it. The OISM Petition alone has more than 31,000 co-signers, all of them professionals with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s. They say in effect that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Since CO2 is the basis for the “carbon” scare, that statement demolishes the man-made global warming narrative. You can’t find 10% of that number who contradict the OISM statement. You couldn’t even find one percent. You know what? You can’t post the names of even one-tenth of one percent of scientits and engineers who contradict the OISM statement. So enough with the alarmists’ ‘consensus’ claims. They’re bogus.
Finally, you oughta wait more than 4 minutes to see your comment. Certain words get comments held up. Words like “deniers”. That’s against site policy here. You’re a noobie, so you’re probably getting a pass this time. And I do read your comments. I don’t reply necessarily to teach you, because some things aren’t worth it. But this site gets thousands of readers a day, some new ones all the time. For their sake, we can’t let the alarmist nonsense you post go uncorrected.
[Comment deleted. Identity thief post. ~mod.]
Michael Palmer (you’re really just a Palmer impersonator, aren’t you?),
1. Prove that a ‘Spice Girl’ signed the OISM statement.
2. The OISM ended at the Kyoto meeting in 1997. It served its purpose of derailing the protocol. No new names were accepted after that.
3. Saying who is not on it is deflection. Your challenge is to find the names of 1% of the OISM numbers, of alarmist scientists who have written contradicting the conclusions. If you can, you will be the first. Good luck.
OK, you have your work cut out.
Ready…
Set…
…GO!
[Comment deleted. Identity thief post. ~mod.]
How come your name isn’t on it, David?
I was asked to sign the OISM petition but I did not consider that my publication record at that time was long enough to justify signing.
dbstealey,
“Your next paragraph is contradicted by so many examples that it’s clear your belief is simply eco-religion.”
It seems to me D. Horne is all about authority/conformity. A thug, essentially ; )
Baa-aaah…
Woof-woof…
All I hear from you is, baa–aah, baa–aah. Sounds like you have identity issues, too.
Did a certain promise at 3:41 to accept Richard Muller’s science pass unnoticed?
Hey, keep ‘correcting’ my posts. Bring out a few dinosaurs. Lindzen against the American Physical Society and the American Meteorological Society, and all the others. Reminds me of the old lady complaining everybody except her is driving up the highway the wrong way…
Sorry to hear of your old lady’s affliction.
Dennis Horne,
Michael Mann’s ‘realclimate’ blog disagrees with Muller, because B.E.S.T. says that global warming is natural, not man-made.
So you’ve gotta decide between your alarmist heroes. Which one is wrong?
Me, I think they’re both wrong…
My thanks to the moderators for allowing me to comment. As has already been stated by others, it’s important people coming to this site see nonsense countered.
Isn’t it interesting how it is argued science is not done by the consensus (true) but somehow there isn’t a consensus (not true). And that a consensus isn’t important anyway… Which is strange because if that is so why try and invent one to counter nearly every informed scientists and scientific society on the planet?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
[Note: this is a science site. Posting opinions from Huffpo and SkS does not rise to the level of real science. You can post those sources, but they are not considered credible. -mod]
Dennis Horne says:
My thanks to the moderators for allowing me to comment. As has already been stated by others, it’s important people coming to this site see nonsense countered.
Thanx for giving skeptics the opportunity to correct your posts.
As a noob here you probably don’t know how many times your “consensus” nonsense has been debunked. There’s even a peer reviewed, published paper that demolishes your belief system. That paper has never been refuted.
It’s amazing how gullible some folks are. I issued you a direct challenge: post the names of one percent of the OISM’s numbers, who have contradicted their co-signed statement.
Linking to a Huffpo opinion piece doesn’t answer my challenge, and it’s as lame as we’d expect from that source. Only names can answer my challenge. You needed to produce the names of only 310 scientists (using your own criteria) who have stated that the OISM statment is wrong. But instead, you tucked tail and hid behind pseudo-science blogs like ‘skeptical’science, which has the dishonor of being the only blog listed on the sidebar as “Unreliable”. That’s polite for ‘the truth doesn’t matter to them’.
Did you know that neo-Nazi John Cook owns that blog? He is the one promoting your debunked “consensus” propaganda. And you fell for it — assuming you’re not another neo-Nazi. When you’re forced to link to the self-serving people in question, it’s meaningless. What’s Cook gonna do, admit that he’s producing alarmist propaganda?
FYI, there are lots more science professionals on record as disagreeing with the “dangerous AGW” narrative, which is the basis of your eco-religious belief system.
Here are another one hundred twenty five scientists who wrote to the UN Sec-Gen, telling him he’s wrong about his climate beliefs:
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists
Your pseudo-science blog tried to claim that a PhD in physics doesn’t qualify someone to understand the climate scam. But you probably worship Ban Ki-Moon, who can’t even do arithmetic. You take sides without the slightest knowledge of what’s being discussed, only parroting alarmist talking points.
Next, here’s a U.S. Senate report that names more than one thousand scientists who also disagreee with the alarmist hoax:
http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf
Want more? OK, here are more than 1,350 scientists who specifically support the skeptics’ side of the debate:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
You can add those thousands of names to the 31,487 OISM co-signers.
There is no question whatever that the climate alarmist clique is composed of relatively few scientists who are riding the grant gravy train. They are supported by a fraction of the public that has never understood that the rise in CO2 has not caused the endlessly predicted global warming, and by a smaller part of the public that is delibearately peddling the DAGW hoax for them. But as we see in poll after poll, less than 20% of the public is concerned about the global warming scare — and they’re becoming fewer every day.
You believe there’s a conspiracy involving nearly every climate scientist and every scientific society on the planet.
Sorry, can’t help you.
But keep calling…
Dennis Horne,
Wrong, as always. The conspiracy is well documented in the Climategate email release, and it involves only alarmist scientists.
Pitch me another one!
Dennis Horn writes,
“You believe there’s a conspiracy involving nearly every climate scientist and every scientific society on the planet.”
Was there a vast “conspiracy” in Germany during the dark time, one asks? Or was there a relatively small “conspiracy” that bullied the whole society into going along with them, including what was at the time arguably the most well developed “scientific community” on Earth?
It seems to me absurd to believe a “vast conspiracy” is required to drive us into another dark time of human authority worship, complete with the ostensible stamp of approval from the “scientific community”. All you need is a relatively small group of liars, cheats and cutthroats, with the backing of some similarly defective rich A-holes, as far as I can tell. Such people are not hard to find in any society, and naturally gravitate toward whatever seems to be the strongest “gang” around . .
Dennis Horne:
You say
I agree and, therefore, I am writing to counter your nonsense.
Firstly, I draw your attention to my above post because you persisently claim there is a “consensus” of “science” that supports the AGW conjecture. Others have repeatedly told you that if there were such a consensus then it would have no importance but you ignore that. My above post that I have linked informs that the consensus which you assert does not exist.
Each climate model is a representation of the understandings of the Earth’s climate possessed by the climate scientists who constructed it. But each model emulates a different climate system: i.e. your consensus does not exist because the climate scientists do NOT agree the climate system so cannot agree the response of the climate system to e.g. an increase of atmospheric CO2.
Secondly, you are assuming the effect of an increase of atmospheric CO2 would be significant, but other effects are much larger so would overwhelm it.
For example, changes in cloud cover have so large an effect that they completely swamp any effect of increase of atmospheric CO2: clouds reflect sun light back to space so it does not reach the Earth’s surface.
Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid-1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid-1980s and late-1990s
(ref. Pinker, R. T., B. Zhang, and E. G. Dutton (2005), Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science, 308(5723), 850– 854.)
Over that recent period of less than two decades, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq meter. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 Watts/sq meter).
Clearly, the effect of an increase of atmospheric CO2 is trivial and is completely swamped by changes to e.g. cloud cover.
But I am responding with science to counter your nonsense, and your posts demonstrate that you do not consider science.
Richard
Dennis Horne,
Enjoying your eco-religious experience here? You don’t do much except make assertions and post appeals to corrupt authorities. Regarding B.E.S.T., they’ve been caught cherry-picking time frames to make their case:
Mr. Horne, you have been refuted once again. Not one thing you’ve ever posted here has withstood even the mildest scrutiny. But keep trying, I enjoy hitting home runs off your weak pitches.
Why not look at an up-to-date graph:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
Dennis Horne,
Thanx for the graphs showing the natural recovery from the Little Ice Age — the second coldest episode of the entire 10 millennium Holocene.
Also, note that there’s no acceleration, and temperatures remain pretty much within specific parameters:
Pitch me another one, these are fun!
Why not look at an up-to-date graph:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Annual_time_series_combined1.png
Satellite data is the gold standard of global temperatures. B.E.S.T. is not.
Satellite data:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PaintImage113.png
Stop throwing your pitches underhanded, they’re too easy!
Trot along back to skepticalpseudoscience, you need some new talking points.
Dennis Horne,
I’ve asked you several questions, but you don’t answer. I answer questions because it’s easy. One characteristic of the alarmist crowd is avoiding answering uncomfortable questions.
How about this — I’ll just ask you one question, and you answer it honestly. Fair enough?
He never answers. I don’t think he even reads. Just keeps repeating ad nauseum the same “everybody does it” mantra. He’s given up thinking for himself, and seems perplexed that others have not, and figures that if he just keeps repeating himself, you’ll eventually come around to his point of view.
@ur momisugly dbstealey
I admire your efforts to correct and counteract Dennis Horne’s clearly misinformed rantings.
JohnWho,
Thanks, someone’s gotta do it. Horne is getting his talking points from alarmist blogs and parroting them here. Readers who have been here a while have seen all the arguments, and none of them holds water.
The basic facts include the fact that the only corellation between CO2 and temperature shows that changes in temperature causes subsequent changes in CO2. I have plenty of documentation showing that. But no one has ever shown me a chart that shows CO2 causing changes in temperature. I invite Mr. Horne to produce one that’s not a simple overlay.
Next, as this article’s headline points out, no scary alarmist predictions have ever happened. At this point, they’re beginning to sound deranged.
Then there are the Climategate emails, where one scientist wrote that he is fabricating years of temperature data.
At this point, only the eco-religionists are left trying to defend the indefensible DAGW hoax.
Yes, all of that and the fact that he isn’t getting his definition of a “climate skeptic” from a reliable source either.
As far as I know, no “climate skeptic” (one who does not agree with the CAGW concept) says that the climate has not been warming since the end of the LIA, or says that the “Green House Effect” does not exist, or says that CO2 is not one of the “Green House Gases”, or says that humans are not adding a measureable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. His posts implying that climate skeptics do all of those things shows he has been grossly mislead.
He wants to be part of the discussion but does not have a clue what is being discussed.
JohnWho,
Correctomundo. I’ve never said that AGW doesn’t exist, in fact I’ve always accepted that it does. But since it’s too small to measure, it’s a non-problem. The scare is over “dangerous AGW”. But Planet Earth has been busy falsifying that belief for almost twenty years now.
Satellite data is the gold standard of global temperatures.
Really? Did you watch this rebuttal, posted above several times? I don’t think so.
Or, the alternative is we’ve watched it, and cannot fathom why any serious person would give those clowns any credence.
I don’t think you realise the satellites don’t measure temperature, let alone the temperature on the surface.
Don’t the “surface” stations actually measure the temperature a few feet above the surface?
JohnWho,
Yes, at what’s called the lower troposphere; the altitude of Dennis’s head.
And enough with the “satellites don’t measure temperature” nonsense, Dennis. By that same metric, neither do stick thermometers.
“I don’t think you realise the satellites don’t measure temperature, let alone the temperature on the surface.”
Red herring. Surface measurements do not measure temperature, either. And, if anything, the troposphere is supposed to be warming faster than the surface.
Dr. Christy’s response to the vid:
The vid is really lame, and those guys are hacks. Real scientists, when data contradict their hypothesis, revise the hypothesis. Those idiots revise the data.
Do laws not apply to climate “scientists?” If Dr Christy is telling the truth, which I’m sure he is, and has evidence to support his claims, how can these other scientists make videos sprewing outright lies? If they “scientists” are telling outright lies in these videos, why aren’t they being prosecuted? Congress has got to take a stronger stance against this nonsense. These laws are costing the tax payers billions.
On a serious note, I doubt if anyone would argue that there are problems with the satellite data. I believe and hope that they’ve been properly identified and corrected.
However, the problems with the surface station data is much worse and, in my opinion, can not be corrected no matter how brilliant the algorithm used is. There is no way, with current data, to know what the real temperature is at an improperly sited station at a given time.
So, no matter how much one denigrates the satellite data, it remains the best we have.
Correct again, JohnWho. The surface station network is hopelessly inaccurate, with well over half the stations having between a 2ºC and 5ºC error:
http://www.surfacestations.org/Figure1_USHCN_Pie.jpg
Yet the alarmist crowd goes nuts over a 0.7ºC wiggle. Over more than a century!
With surface stations, we can’t even see an honest fraction of a degree.
The satellite data and the ground data agreed with one another, until the CC gang decided they couldn’t tolerate the blazing discrepancy between models and reality. The “pause” had to go. So Karl et al. were dispatched to remove it by any means necessary.
And, remove it they did, by throwing away the best ocean data available. The only thing standing in their way now is that pesky satellite data, which stubbornly refuses to toe the line. Since they cannot change it, they must undermine it. They believe they can be as blatant and transparent as they like because they have an unending supply of idiot, unthinking myrmidons like Dennis to help sow the seeds of doubt among the uninformed.
Seven seconds into this political propaganda video a picture of Sen. Ted Cruz is put on the screen with the overlaid words: ‘Climate Denier’.
When someone is taken in by videos like that, they have zero interest in science. Dennis Horne is all politics, all the time.
Mr. Horne, you never have answered the questions I’ve asked. If you had a convincing answer, you would have posted it. Instead, you post carp like that.
Please stop posting your political propaganda videos. They belong on Hotwhopper, SkS, or similar very low trafficked blogs. This is a real science site. Thanx in advance for helping to keep it that way.
Well, that’s enough laughs for one day.
You should know though, the climategate nonsense was just a beat-up. It started as a joke. The joke was they were going to ‘fool’ the punters by giving them ‘the truth’. Absolutely and totally exonerated by several independent reviews.
And so it proved to be true. The truth has them flummoxed.
“Well, that’s enough laughs for one day.”
Well, no, we will continue to laugh at your posts even if you’ve stopped posting.
🙂
Of course you will! No surprises there…
Just popped back to offer a bit more real science:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/N-TREND/Wilsonetal2016.pdf
LOLOL!! Telling the temperature from tree rings — hundreds of years ago! As if!
I smell desperation.
Treemometers!
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Baaaah-bye.
Dennis Horne,
If you believe those were anything but Potemkin Village “reviews”, you’re even more credulous than I thought. There was never, in any of them, one hostile witness called. Not only were the questions so kissy-face that it was embarassing, it turns out that Michael Mann was involved in formulating the questions he would be asked!
You will believe anything that confirms your bias.
Mr Stealey, as ever, is right. I offered to give evidence to Sir Muir Russell’s whitewash of Climategate, but was told I was too late. My request to give evidence was made directly to the unspeakable Russell on the day his inquiry was first publicly announced.
When Jones of East Anglia “university” was interviewed by another bunch of whitewash merchants, Jones was not even asked whether he had destroyed the data he had said he was going to destroy.
“Well, that’s enough laughs for one day”, says the clown.
Dennis Horne can’t produce credible arguments based on verifiable facts or evidence, so he tucks tail with that throwaway line, and skedaddles.
Mr. Horne, you lost the debate because you cannot produce any evidence that supports your alarmist belief system. We get it: you’re a true believer. But this is the internet’s BEST SCIENCE site. Baselsess assertions like yours are not adequate. So trot on back to hotwhopper, or wherever you get the talking points you’re parroting. They just love your kind of pseudo science.
Okay. So let’s recap. The Royal Society, American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society and every scientific society in the world versus … well, a ragbag of losers. I mean, who, outside the Loony Right Republicans listens to them?
The argumentum ad populum, or argument from headcount, is a logical fallacy excoriated by Arisrotle 2350 years ago. The argumentum ad verecundiam, or argument from appeal to authority, is another Aristotelian fallacy. The argumentum ad hominem, or argument from attack on the opponent’s person rather than on his assertions, is a disfiguring subspecies of the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi, or argument from disregard of the norms of rational disputation, a third Aristotelian fallacy.
A fallacy is a species of argument so fundamentally flawed that no logical conclusion can be drawn from it except that its perpetrator is insufficiently educated, or is unconcerned about seeking the truth. Mr Horne, having uttered three of the most tired and shopworn logical fallacies in two sentences, is not to be credited with aught but invincible ignorance, the theologians’ term for one who will, for partisan reasons, aprioristically reject all evidence however compelling, that demonstrates or illuminates the truth.
Where the Alarmist arguments are not a farrago of classic logical fallacies and inconsistencies, they are an assortment of assertions and Just So stories. It’s all they’ve got. It is very sad and depressing that this is the state of science in the 21st century.
Okay. So let’s say it again. The Royal Society, American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society and every scientific society in the world versus … well, a ragbag of losers. I mean, who, outside the Loony Right Republicans listens to them?
Spouting Latin doesn’t alter the facts.
Baa-aah-aah!
Mr Horne should understand that Arostotle was Greek, not Roman. The mediaeval schoolmen gave the Aristotelian fallacies their concise Latin names one and a half millennia after he had first described them, showing how important they were. And from the Middle Ages to my own generation, logic was taught as one of the three core pre-university subjects, showing its continuing importance.
Then the totalitarian Left campaigned against logic, because it provided everyone with a powerful means to spot defects in the Party Line. In Socialist France, the teaching of logic was actually banned.
Yet, whether the under-educated Mr Horne likes it or not, logic underlies all mathematics and all science. It follows that, where data show a hypothesis to have been false, that hypothesis must be modified or even rejected, even if it had once been universally thought to be true.
As the head posting amply demonstrates, the high-sensitivity hypothesis is definitively contradicted by the evidence that global warming is not occurring at anything like the officially predicted rate. Even the IPCC, the political body that Mr Horne, a true-believer in the Party Line, no doubt regards as the repository of his actually non-existent scientific consensus, has drastically reduced its medium-term predictions in the light of the scandalous disregard for the Party Line that Nature exhibits.
Mr Horne, in sniffly dismissing logic, is sniffly dismissing science itself, just as his totalitarian intellectual progenitors the eugenicists and the Lysenkoists did. We are champions of the scientific method: he is a mere drone, a slave to the Party Line.
“Dennis Horne
January 16, 2016 at 9:34 pm
… and every scientific society in the world… “
Wrong.
Not every scientific society in the world believes that human CO2 emissions, primarily from fossil fuel burning, is the primary cause of “global warming”.
Your statements become even more laughable, even after you stated you had provided enough laughs for one day.
Humor is a good thing though, so even if you are credited with invincible ignorance, you at least have one redeeming virtue.
Mr. Horne should be aware that these august bodies very rarely, if ever, reflect the views of all their members. There are a number of scientists and mathematicians, even amongst the membership of the Royal Society, who have serious reservations about the strength of CAGW.
There is a long history of scientists battling against the received opinions of their peers in order to get the truth accepted. Perhaps Mr. Horne should learn of the derision that the post office clerk, Albert Einstein, suffered from the scientific societies of his day.
Or perhaps he should reflect on the words on Dan Shechtman, the 2011 Chemistry Nobel Prize winner, “For a long time it was me against the world, I was a subject of ridicule and lectures about the basics of crystallography. The leader of the opposition to my findings was the two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, the idol of the American Chemical Society and one of the most famous scientists in the world. For years, ’til his last day, he fought against quasi-periodicity in crystals. He was wrong, and after a while, I enjoyed every moment of this scientific battle, knowing that he was wrong.”
Have any of those organizations actually polled their membership and then issued a statement that was reflective of that poll?
Yes, when a scientist shows evidence the science is wrong the balance of informed opinion will change. In time. He’ll need to be very clever and well-informed, though, because an awful lot of clever people have produced evidence the science is sound.
The door is open.
Mr Horne will find definitive scientific evidence that the Party Line is wrong in the head posting. The world is not warming apt anything like the predicted rate, Get used to it, and learn that when the data do not fit the theory a true man of science reconsiders the theory.
Dennis,
Do you know this scientific principle?
In science, there is NO consensus. 100% can believe that the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the world. That doesn’t make it true.
Mr Horne, like all others on the totalitarian Left, cannot bear to abandon the repudiation of the scientific method that is entailed by his belief that science is done by consensus. There is, in fact, no scientific consensus even on the question whether more than half of recent global warming was manmade. Even if there were a scientific consensus rather than an anti-scientific Party Line, science proceeds logically and, therefor, admits of no consensus in its eternal search for the objective truth.
Let him produce scientific arguments against the wealth of scientific data presented in the head posting. If not, he is wasting his time.
Science and technology always build on what has gone before. Even Newton and Einstein didn’t start from scratch, they started from what was known and agreed on. That’s a consensus.
I didn’t come here to give you guys a lesson; you didn’t get where you are today by knowing how to learn…
Whatever science is, scientists are people who investigate everything in the universe and try to explain it. Their reports are assessed by other scientists, generally in the same or similar field. If their work persuades enough scientists it’s sound, it becomes accepted for the time being: that’s the balance of informed opinion. After some years and more work and more reports, a consensus may develop. Eventually, like evolution, it becomes, in everyday parlance, a fact. Disputed, but still a fact.
That Man is changing the climate by his emissions of CO2 is accepted by nearly all climate scientists and informed scientists and scientific society on the planet. That’s a fact.
Yes it’s disputed. So is evolution. Vaccination. Fluoridation. Obama’s birthplace, 9/11, Moon landing. ‘chemtrails’ …
Of course man can believe anything. He can even believe in the existence of gods he invented himself…
I thank you all for the time and trouble you have taken to respond to my comments. It’s been a lot of fun.
Dennis Horne
January 17, 2016 at 2:47 pm
…
That Man is changing the climate by his emissions of CO2 is accepted by nearly all climate scientists and informed scientists and scientific society on the planet. That’s a fact.
But what isn’t a fact, and where your ignorance lies, is exactly how much human CO2 emissions effect the temperature of the atmosphere. There is no evidence that shows that this effect is either measurable or detectable. Therefore, it is of little consequence.
Dennis, you really do not understand science at all. You sit there, and keep making the same argument over and over again. We heard it. It isn’t valid. That is why you make no headway.
If you have any facts to share, then do so. But, get some new material. Something. Anything. This is monotonous, and only serves to reinforce the perception that you are a mindless drone.
Since Mr Horne has already had it explained to him that the notion of science by consensus is anti- scientific, his reparative and otiose repetition of his superstitious faith in the existence and rightness of a scientific consensus that he has been told does not in fact exist, and that the head posting demonstrates to be materially incorrect, reflects no credit on him.
… has already had it explained to him that the notion of science by consensus is anti- scientific …
What are your qualifications in science to explain science to me?
What? You didn’t like me explaining what science is? You don’t like my repeating the fact scientists and governments accept the science? Well, of course you don’t. Talking about the truth:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1989/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015/trend
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1979/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1989/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015/trend
And which graph proves that human CO2 is causing the atmosphere to warm?
Your “truth” is not supported by reality.
Get over yourself, Dennis. You’re clueless and naive.
Doesn’t matter. Almost every climate scientists and informed scientists and every scientific society on the planet has got it sorted.
You and the other losers have lost. Science won.
Dennis Horne,
Enough with your constant ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacies. Your corrupted ‘authorities’ are using people like you for their tools, because you don’t have a clue about how science or the scientific method works..
Scientists have raging arguments all the time over hypotheses, conjectures, theories… you didn’t know that?
Scientists are always arguing. But amazingly, every organization that has taken a stand on AGW has issued the same alarming statements. In the real world there would be a normal divergence of opinions.
Just the fact that the (usually 6-member) Boards of those organizations got a majority together, and parroted the same ‘dangerous AGW’ narrative without ever allowing their rank-and-file membership to have a say tells intelligent folks that there’s more going on than meets the eye.
Prof Richard Lindzen has written about that process, and he names names. If he was lying he would be sued into poverty. But no one has ever dared to challenge him. Lindzen explains how activists get a Board to issue a policy statement like the ones that are leading you by the nose in the direction they want.
I’ve been elected to a statewide post, and I know how easy it is to trade votes and favors in an executive Board. With people like George Soros in the background, how hard do you think it is to get a majority to simply say something? You are naive and credulous, my friend, if you don’t believe that people can be bought and paid for. It’s easy peasy. Piece o’ cake. A walk in the park. &etc…
The truth is, most people want to be bought. It’s human nature. As Churchill said, (paraphrased from memory): ‘We have already established that. Now we’re negotiating the price.’
And BTW: you must be looking in the mirror, because skeptics have never surrendered. We haven’t lost, and your numbers are dwindling…
He’s just a kid, db. Thinks he’s got it all figured out. Give him a few years. Not worth any more time right now.
[Deleted. More “denier” comments and you will get a timeout. -mod.]
@D. Horne,
Your charts are worthless. No one else posts nonsense like that. It proves nothing.
But believers in the climate hoax are sure global warming is caused by rising CO2. Here’s a chart that shows causation, and CO2 is not the cause of changing temperature:
(click in charts to embiggen)
Here’s another chart that shows ∆CO2 is caused by ∆temperature:
I challenge you to produce a cause and effect chart, showing that ∆T is caused by ∆CO2.
And if you want more charts on many time scales showing what these two show, ask and I’ll post them. Just say, “Pretty please!”
Doesn’t matter. Heads science wins tails you lose.
Get over it.
Let’s decide what to do about global climate change.
Mr Horne has yet to produce anything recognisable as a scientific argument. His petulant and childishly-repeated argument that there is a consensus and that it must by its mere existence be right, when he has been told that science proceeds logically, that argument from consensus is logically fallacious and that, as the head posting demonstrates, the consensus is plumb wrong, is not likely to convince anyone but himself.
I don’t need to convince anyone. Almost every climate scientist and informed scientist and scientific society on the planet is already convinced. That’s a consensus. That governments around the world accept.
I don’t need to make a scientific argument of any description. I can choose to accept the consensus, or not.
You don’t. But who cares?
The seeker after truth does not place his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable or widespread. Instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to his hard-won scientific knowledge, to scrutiny, to investigation, to inquiry, to verification, to checking, to checking, to checking again. The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow.
The above paragraph is by the Eastern founder of the scientific method, Abu Ali Ibn al Hassan Ibn al Hussain Ibn Al Hussain Ibn Al Haytham, in 11th-century Iraq. Similar sentiments have been expressed by other leading natural philosophers, from Newton and Einstein to Popper. Anyone who places his faith in a supposed consensus, particularly when he has been given information to the effect that argument from consensus is a logical fallacy and hence anti-scientific, and to the effect that the claimed consensus does not in fact exist (see Legates et al., 2013), is, therefore repudiating science in the most fundamental way, replacing it with the mere politics of head-count.
So you think the scientific method is something defined in a book? By a philosopher or ancient “authority”.
The scientific method is the way scientists work such that their results and conclusions are accepted by other scientists as valid. And, subject to verification may even be ‘true’ until falsified.
Dennis Horne:
You write
As I explained to you in my above post to you, science refutes your every argument. Live with it.
Climate always changes everywhere. It always has and it always will.
People will adapt to climate change as they always have,m and your ravings cannot alter that.
Richard
Ah. Mr. Horne’s reply to my challenge is: “Doesn’t matter.” May I translate your words, Mr. Horne? Thank you:
‘I am unable to find any charts that show that CO2 causes global temperature changes’.
Is that accurate?
If not, post your chart(s).
I’ll wait here while you trot off to Hotwhopper and Skepticalpseudoscience for more talking points…
Dennis Horne,
Since in the history of science you can see several famous clear cases (there are actually many cases) where dominating science consensuses were found to be fundamentally wrong, then your appeal to CAGW consensus is a moot point.
You need to either show the real corroborated multiple and independent and objective real world observations that support the CAGW theory or you’ve no scientific merit.
John
I have no scientific merit. Okay. Anyway, I’m not “doing” science. I’m simply stating incontrovertible facts.
When in the history of science have nearly all the thousands of informed scientists and hundreds of scientific societies in the world gone to the public with such a strongly-worded consensus and then been forced to admit they was hopelessly wrong?
Of course, it could happen. I hope it does. I love burning lots of fossil fuel.
Dennis Horne wrote:
I have no scientific merit.
Dennis! Bro! We’re in agreement!
Next:
…I’m not “doing” science. I’m simply stating incontrovertible facts.
Well, you’re stating your opinion and calling it ‘facts’. But you’re not alone there.
And:
…I love burning lots of fossil fuel.
Me, too. The CO2 benefits the biosphere, and there’s no downside. More CO2 is better.
Now, if you could just stop repeating the ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacy, you would be on the road to redemption and recovery. Maybe the scales would fall from your eyes like Paul on the road to Damascus, and you would see the unstated agendas behind the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare.
Good luck. Lots of others here have started out like you, and later written that they’ve been enlightened. It could happen to you, too.
Mr Horne, clinging ever more dseperately to the sinking ship Consensus, wailingly demands when almost every scientist has agreed but they have yet been proven wrong. The history of science is precisely the history of the brave souls who were not prepared to accept the supposed “consensus” of their day. When Hutton proposed that the Earth must be a great deal older than the 6000 years calculated from the generations of Abraham by the amiable but misguided Bishop Ussher, he was flying in the face of the consensus of his day. When a patent clerk third class in an obscure patent office proposed that Newton’s laws of celestial motion were, at the margins, incorrect his paper was greeted with close to a decade of silent disapproval before the consensus that had reigned for three centuries was discarded.
But at least there was, in these and many other examples, a consensus in the first place, even though it was wrong. At present, however, there is no consensus on the climate question. Legates et al., 2013, surveying 11,944 papers publilshed on climate and related questions in the 21 years 1991-2011, found that just 64 papers, or 0.3% of the sample, had stated their agreement to the proposition that recent warming was mostly manmade. Just about every scientist is silent on the question how much warming was or will be manmade, for the answer is that we do not know, and there is mounting real-world evidence, some of it in the head posting, that the notion that CO2 will have a major effect on temperature – as opposed to an effect – is plumb wrong.
To cling to a consensus on a scientific question is evidence of feeble-mindedness. To cling to a consensus when it is demonstrated that none exists is merely pathetic.
I find intriguing the possibility that the claimed consensus on CAGW is non-scientifically based and may be formed essentially just via PR gimmicks promoting vested scientist’s interests.
Shining the light of reason into that possibility will be fun to do.
John
Dennis Horne says:
Doesn’t matter.
That’s his answer to the facts posted. Below he writes:
I don’t need to make a scientific argument of any description. I can choose to accept the consensus…
Good to know, because Mr. Horne has never made a good scientific argument. There are lots of people like Dennis. They don’t succeed in life. I would ask him for his CV, but it’s clear he doesn’t have one.
What’s really scary is his worship of government. If he ever gets a paying job he will begin to see government not as benign, but as a parasite that is never satisfied.
“What we have here, is a failure to communicate.”
A number of adults here are attempting to communicate with Dennis Horne who is acting like an immature child.
He is correct though, science “wins”. He just doesn’t realize or won’t accept that what he’s being fed isn’t science and when folks here attempt to introduce him to proper science he simply can not process it. So, while science wins, Dennis Horne loses.
I would say that many of the posters responding to him are very knowledgeable and most likely may have better things to do with their time. However, I often learn something new from these responses to “Dennis Hornes” so for what it is worth, I appreciate that they’ve taken their time to provide further enlightenment.
Just going back over the thread I saw this:
“Dennis Horne
January 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm
Isn’t it interesting how it is argued science is not done by the consensus (true)…”
So, Dennis agrees that science is not done by consensus and then proceeds to argue that it is!
Sorry, I can’t help myself – LOL
JohnWho, you, Lord Monckton, Aphan and others have repeatedly demolished Dennis Horne’s pitiful arguments. I’m beginning to suspect that he’s just a young, immature rabble rouser with zero understanding of this subject.
‘Fess up, Horne. Isn’t everything you say just a parroting of the alarmist crowd’s talking points? Post something original and verifiable for a change, and we can discuss it.
dbstealey: “Scientists are always arguing. But amazingly, every organization that has taken a stand on AGW has issued alarming statements.”
So what does that tell you?
1. The scientific societies are very sure the science is right: man-made climate change is real. OR
2. The scientific societies and climate scientists are all part of a vast conspiracy.
In the end it’s a personal choice.
Dennis Horne:
I respect science and I deplore trolls.
I understand your refusal to answer my posts addressed to you is because you are incapable of defending the twaddle you have posted in this thread and I have refuted.
To help you remember what you have failed to answer, I remind that my posts addressed to you are here and here.
Richard
Mr Horne, who seems unwise in the ways of the world, closes what passes for his mind to the likelihood that scientific societies, which are special-interest lobby-groups first and foremost, have signed up the the climate scam because it is profitable. But no society has polled its entire membership before issuing its tendentious me-too climate statements. These statements are all the work of tiny handfuls of over-politicized profiteers and activists, who will do anything rather than consult the entire membership and end up with an answer they disagree with politically and can make no money out of.
The fact is that the closest thing we have to true science is not in the self-serving scientific societies, but in peer-reviewed learned journals. And, as Legates et al., 2013, demonstrated conclusively, in those journals only 0.3% of a very large sample of climate-related papers stated that most of the global warming of recent decades was caused by us.
In any event, as the head posting establishes, the supposed “consensus” could only get the scare going by making exaggerated predictions. The profiteers of doom first began issuing their overblown and anti-scientific forecasts 25 years ago. As the head posting establishes, on all datasets – whether satellite or terrestrial – the predictions of the IPCC, the official embodiment of Mr Horne’s much-vaunted but anti-scientific “consensus”, have repeatedly proven wildly exaggerated.
A reasonable scientific mind would meditate on why there is a large and rapidly growing discrepancy between the over-egged predictions of the computer models and the failure of global temperatures to respond as ordered, rather than futilely bealting about a non-existent “consensus” that, even if it existed, would be wrong.
“Mr Horne … closes what passes for his mind to the likelihood that scientific societies, which are special-interest lobby-groups first and foremost, have signed up the the climate scam because it is profitable.”
I can see you have an open mind.
DH,
I can see that you don’t.
Mr Horne … closes what passes for his mind to the likelihood that scientific societies, which are special-interest lobby-groups first and foremost, have signed up the the climate scam because it is profitable.
I can see you have an open mind.
Lord Monckton is right.
I don’t want to side with Mr. Horne, but I think there are two kinds of consensus (sp?):
We’re quite certain that the next ice age is coming. We seem to be close to the end of an interglacial period.
Whether the next ice age will start in 10 or in 1000 years we don’t know.
So, I don’t like cold. I fear the next ice age (imagine migrating to the south, as far as Senegal possibly), but on the other hand, I think humanity now has the means to avert an ice age, either by enriching the atmosphere with ‘real’ greenhouse gas or by putting up some mirrors in orbit.
How to end up with a “pristine” satellite tropospheric temperature record:
1. Convert microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers into temperature estimates for each layer. (This requires a computer model incorporating many subjective decisions.)
2. Adjust to account for the constantly changing orbital decay of over 10 different satellites.
3. Adjust to account for the constantly changing orbital drift of over 10 different satellites.
4. Adjust to account for drifts in the on-board calibration of the microwave measurements on each satellite.
5. Adjust to account for the transition between earlier and more sophisticated versions of the satellite microwave sensors; a variety of MSUs are currently in use.
These adjustments led UAH to make by far the biggest adjustment to any temperature series in 2015 (v5.6 to v6.0, still in beta).
Dennis Horne:
I see you are still refusing to answer my clear rebuttals of your twaddle.
I know your refusal is because you know your twaddle is wrong.
You know your refusal is because you know your twaddle is wrong.
All onlookers can see your refusal is because you know your twaddle is wrong.
And I will keep pointing out your refusal every time you try to change the subject.
Richard
Mr Horne lists some of the areas in which the satellites might once have been prone to error. What he carefully fails to state is that, unlike the terrestrial temperature records, the satellite datasets are calibrated by comparison of their mid-troposphere outputs with the mid-troposphere measurements of balloon-borne radiosondes, and also by platinum resistance thermometers that in turn calibrate themselves in real time by reference to the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation.
Mr Horne also somehow fails to state that the defects in the satellite records that led to an understatement of the warming rate were corrected more than a decade ago. The recent adjustment to the UAH dataset, which had been running hot, was to correct for the emission of heat from the onboard instrumentation, and had the effect not of increasing but of reducing the temperature trend, bringing it into line with the RSS satellite dataset, which provides a further measure of calibration.
Mr Horne is also culpably silent on the defects of the terrestrial temperature datasets. GISS, for instance, derives half of the warming it shows since 1900 from adjustments, many of them questionable.
Mr Horne is also silent on the calibration problems with the terrestrial datasets: the measurement uncertainty, caused by the fact that no standard instrumentation has yet been brought in worldwide (for fear that it would show very little warming); that no standard siting protocol to exclude the urban heat-island effect has been brought in worldwide (ditto); that the recent adjustments to all three terrestrial datasets to raise the apparent rate of warming still further were based among other things on ignoring the ARGO bathythermographs that give us the best evidence we have of ocean warming (and, in the 11 full years of their operation they show no warming of the ocean surface at all); then there is the bias uncertainty; then there is the coverage uncertainty (this one does not apply to the satellites), etc., etc.
Mr Horne may find it instructive to read the long and agonized series of messages in the Climategate file by a technician at the University of East Anglia explaining the difficulties in compiling the HadCRUT surface-temperature dataset.
Andm, in any event, on all records, terrestrial as well as satellite, the discrepancy between exaggerated prediction and unexciting reality is wide and widening. Shouting “consensus” does not alter that fact, which may easily be discerned from the head posting and verified by the numerous references cited there.
All the data sets show warming.
The projections have agreed with reality within the margin of error.
I don’t need to make a scientific argument of any description. I can choose to accept the consensus
Any fool can say that.
And:
All the data sets show warming.
Wrong, as always.
The latest false propaganda/talking point is that satellite data is inaccurate. That is simply a lie. No systm is perfect, but by comparison to all others, satellite data is by far the most accurate — and it clearly shows that global warming stopped more than 18 years ago.
Horne me boi, satellite corrections were made more than ten years ago, which fixed your #1 – #5. Who is giving you your misinformation to parrot here?
And:
All the data sets show warming
The most accurate ones show about 0.1ºC warming over 25 years, and zero warming for the past 10 – 18 years, but that isn’t the question. The earth is still emerging from the LIA, in fits and starts. What is being observed is natural climate variability, and it has happened before, repeatedly. This chart is from Dr. Phil Jones, an arch-Warmist:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
Go argue with Jones if you don’t like it …buddy.