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.
You’re free to do as the moderator pleases, Richard.
If you reject a very broadly-based scientific consensus I would need to be delusional to think I could alter your deep-seated beliefs.
[Reply: This moderator is getting tired of your endless thread-bombing. You are constantly repeating talking points that have been debunked, while adding nothing original. -mod]
Mr Horne should change his record. Every time he bleats about “consensus” he reveals himself as feeble-minded. Science is not, repeat not, repeat not done by consensus. It is done by measurement and observation and the application of pre-existing theory to the results. The measurements are in, and on all datasets they show that the IPCC’s wild predictions were childish exaggerations. Mr Horne appears unable to produce any argument against the facts set forth clearly in the head posting. For his information, there is no scientist who, on being presented with these facts, would dare to claim that the predictions of the IPCC had proven skilful, when self-evidently and on all measures, terrestrial as well as satellite, they have not.
Agreed, science is not done by consensus. Nevertheless, work and reports done by scientists are reviewed and assessed by other scientists. In time, what was once original and possibly ground breaking becomes old hat — generally accepted. That is a consensus.
That is what has happened with evolution. It’s still disputed by a few religious fanatics but widely regarded as a fact of life.
The same with man-made climate change. It’s still disputed but accepted by nearly every climate scientist and informed scientist and scientific society on the planet.
Your endlessly repeated claim that scientists disagree is therefore nothing more than wishful thinking. Yes, there are some but the number who have a record of papers published in peer-reviewed journals is probably fewer than 10. Even counting the rubbish de Freitas was removed for allowing.
So, whatever weaknesses there may or may not be in the science, it’s been broadly accepted. You can write all the mumbo jumbo you like, scientists don’t seem to be taking any notice of you.
Of course they might all be wrong. A Nobel Prize awaits the first to prove it.
Mr Horne continues to demonstrate a desperate, invincible ignorance. As has already been explained to him upthread by others, no one here denies that our existence has the potential to influence the weather.
However, there is in fact no consensus, whether in the scientific journals or elsewhere, on the extent of the warming our activities will be expected to cause. The predictions of the amount of warming that should have occupied by now have proven wildly exaggerated. That is a fact that no appeal to mere consensus can in any way alter.
Also, since Legates et al. analysed exclusively papers in the reviewed journals, by definition 100% of the authors of those papers had a publication record. Yet only 64 of 11,944 papers explicitly endorsed the supposed consensus that recent warming was mostly manmade. There are in fact thousands of reviewed papers questioning the exaggerated claims and predictions of the profiteers of doom -and surprisingly few that support them.
In any event, science is not done by consensus, so further appeals to consensus on Mr Horne’s part will merely serve further to underline his petulant ignorance.
Horne says:
A Nobel Prize awaits the first to prove it.
A Nobel prize awaits the first scientist or group that produces a verifiable measurement quantifying AGW, as a specific fraction of all global warming.
You are arguing for something that has never even been measured. How is your argument any different from religion?
Dennis Horne:
Clearly, inability to read can be added to the list of your faults which you have demonstrated in this thread. You now say
Dear boy, if you were capable of reading then you would have read my post addressed to you that included this
As I said, I will persist in ignoring your attempted distractions and keep dragging you back to your refusal to answer my clear rebuttals of your twaddle.
Richard
Feel free to ignore me. You don’t seem to be doing a very good job of it.
The Lord Monckton Foundation archives these threads as a way to warn future generations of the dangers of totalitarian political interference with science. Future generations will be amazed at how incapable of independent thought the totalitarian true-believers such as Mr Horne were. The good news is that the hard Left are well known to all to be the drivers of the climate scare. As the scare collapses, so will the Left.
Good gracious. I’m going down in history.
Monckton of Brenchley January 18, 2016 at 3:18 pm
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.
You might go down in history too.
Dennis Horne:
Your reply to Viscount Monckton maintains your record of only making erroneous comments in this thread.
Nobody has made any suggestion that you will “go down in history”
but
Viscount Monckton has earned his place in history: there is no “might” about that.
Richard
Are you contradicting Lord Monckton? Or don’t you know what ‘archive’ means?
The Lord Monckton Foundation archives these threads … such as Mr Horne …
Dennis Horne:
I know what “archive” means but you are claiming to not know what “history” means.
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
Dennis Horne,
You’re arguing with everyone. Get a life, pal. You clearly have mental problems. It’s you against the world, eh? You need a girlfriend. Or whatever.
Dennis Horne:
Your inability to read is extraordinary!
I AM ignoring YOU but I am refuting your infantile nonsense so it cannot mislead others.
Why do trolls think THEY are important?
If you had any importance then you would be making useful contributions to things.
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
I can read you, buddy.
Dennis Horne:
You say to me
I am not your “buddy”: I consider that suggestion is an insult.
And if you can “read” me then there can be no excuse for your failure to address my refutations of your nonsense.
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
Oh, I though ‘buddy’ was quite mild as an insult.
dbstealey January 16, 2016 at 6:08 pm
…. Did you know that neo-Naz* 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-Naz*.
Dennis Horne:
You are posting yet more evasion.
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
You never answered either Richard or me. Or anyone, for that matter. You just make non-stop assertions which are simple-minded talking points you copy from thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs.
So why not answer when asked? Are you a neo-Nazi like Cook? Or are you just a juvenile parrot who doesn’t have a girlfriend …or whatever.
[trimmed. .mod]
You believe you have refuted my comments. So? What’s bugging you?
You think nearly all the climate scientists and informed scientists and scientific societies in the world are either wrong (or part of a scam).
If you are a scientist prove it. You’ll be hailed a genius.
Don’t bother ‘proving’ anything to me. As you implied I’m not important. Indeed, you have my permission to keep on ignoring me.
Horne says:
nearly all the climate scientists and informed scientists and scientific societies in the world…
You’re a one-trick pony. If you didn’t have the ‘Appeal to corrupted authorities’ logical fallacy to constantly parrot, your comments would look like this: ( “…” ).
Dennis Horne:
You keep posting red herrings in attempt to provide evasions.
I think this is because you lack any ability to understand the evidence put to you by several including me.
I “implied” nothing about you. I have said you are not important, but your silly assertions require repudiation to prevent them misleading others. Your comment could be understood to be a request for a clear statement of my opinion of you and, therefore, I provide that. I am not aware that I have ever met you, but your posts in this thread indicate that either
(a) you are an employed troll obtaining payments for making silly posts
or
(b) you are a sad act trying to bolster his low self-esteem by putting meaningless words on a screen for others to see.
I have proven much to you. And that includes my being a scientist when I have repeatedly referred you to my above post here that references and explains some of my past work.
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Either admit you are wrong, or address my refutations, or run away.
Richard
richardscourtney: ” includes my being a scientist…”
The information I give is the accepted science. Prove it wrong and you will be hailed a genius.
Come on, give it a shot. As a scientist. Or not…
D. Horne asserts:
The information I give is the accepted science.
Accepted by whom? By science illiterates, and rent seeeking scientists. You’re in the former category.
And:
Prove it wrong
We have, over and over. But we still get the same reaction from you:
http://www.moonbattery.com/kathleen-backus.jpg
Yep, that’s Dennis.
Dennis Horne:
Are you mad? You say
But you have provided NO scientific information of any kind, “accepted” or otherwise!
You have only claimed a “consensus” that I have demonstrated does NOT exist.
That is one of the refutations of your nonsense I have already provided.
There is no evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man made) global warming (AGW); none, zilch, nada.
Three decades of research conducted world wide for more than three decades at a cost of more than $5 billion per year has failed to find any evidence for AGW.
In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found some such evidence but that was soon shown to be an effect of his having selected a sequence from within a time series!
Provide some such evidence and you would certainly be awarded at least two Nobel Prizes.
I repeat,
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
PS Your paymasters are wasting their money.
I developed a global warming/climate change model using Planck’s law, 380ppm atmospheric CO2 emissivity (Hottel), mean beam lengths, the fourth power law (Stefan Boltzmann) in 2008 and predicted that the then 10 to 11 year pause would go on for at least another 8 years and that is exactly what has happened. This is in complete contrast to other climate change models.
The simple truth is LWIR in the 15 micron band is absorbed to extinction after a short traverse through the atmosphere, so any additional CO2 has no effect. That is why there has been no global warming over the last 18 to 19yrs even though the partial pressure of CO2 has been steadily increasing from 0.00038 to 0.00040 or so atmospheres.
Chemengris is correct as far as the lower and perhaps the mid troposphere are concerned. It is only in the upper troposphere that the air is dry enough to prevent the principal absorption bands of water vapor from overlaying and swamping those of CO2. But whether a very large warming of the entire troposphere is possible as a result of the very few excitation/de-excitation collisions between photons in CO2’s absorption bands and the sparse CO2 molecules in the thin upper air is certainly a moot point. As far as the temperature records are concerned, it is beginning to look as though the original predictions of the IPCC were wildly exaggerated.
Whatever the projections or ‘predictions’ as you call them, Earth is heating and temperatures are rising.
Not good news.
Dennis Horne
Ah. But WHY do you claim “Not good news”? If in fact the earth is indeed warming at all.
What is the credible “harm” and what are the POTENTIAL HARM done to the world’s people for a theoretical decrease in global average temperatures between 0.0 and -1.0 degrees, and what is that probability of an decrease? (True, none of YOUR models is allowed to predict any decrease at all, but then again, NONE of your models forecast an 18 year pause in global average temperatures either, nor the very real decrease in global average temperature between 1945 and 1976.)
What is the credible “harm done” and what are the BENEFITS to the world’s people for a theoretical increase in global average temperatures and an increase in global CO2 levels between 0.0 and 1.0 degrees, and what is that probability of an increase? (More than 25% of climate models forecast only that little of an increase!)
What is the credible “harm done” and what are the BENEFITS to the world’s people for a theoretical increase in global average temperatures between 1.0 and 2.0 degrees, and what is that probability of an increase? (About 25% of climate models forecast only that increase!)
What is the credible “harm done” and what are the BENEFITS to the world’s people for a theoretical increase in global average temperatures between 2.0 and 3.0 degrees, and what is that probability of an increase? (More than 20% of climate models forecast only that little of an increase!)
What is the credible “harm done” and what are the BENEFITS to the world’s people for a theoretical increase in global average temperatures between 3.0 and 4.0 degrees and a continued increase in global CO2 levels, and what is that probability of an increase? (Less than 15% of climate models forecast only that much of an increase!)
What is the credible “harm done” and what are the BENEFITS to the world’s people for a theoretical increase in global average temperatures greater than 4.0 degrees, and what is that probability of an increase? (Less than 10% of climate models forecast only that much of an increase; yet your favorite “gloom and doom” forecast REQUIRES much more than a 5 degree increase in temperatures by the year 2100 for even a measurable – much less harmful – increase!)
Dennis Horne,
Thanx for showing the planet’s natural recovery from the LIA. And we always like to see those “adjusted” graphs from B.E.S.T., which tried to pull a fast one before:
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
And you baselessly assert: Not good news.
Explain why a warmer world is a bad thing. The planet has been up to 8ºC warmer in the past without causing any ‘climate catastrophe’. In fact, the biosphere flourished with life and diversity during warmer times. It’s cold that kills.
Since you’re the official parrot of the scientific illiterates who occastionally post here, explain what the problem is at this point:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Dennis Horne:
Whatever the projections or ‘predictions’ as you call them, Earth STOPPED heating and temperatures STOPPED rising nearly two decades ago.
This is not good news because the Earth has yet to recover from the LIA such as to attain the warm temperatures of the Medieval Climate Optimum.
But this is science and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you refuse to accept science.
And you are still providing evasions.
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
Mr Horne, in quibbling over my use of the word “predictions” for the IPCC’s predictions, is plainly unaware of the IPCC’s documents. Its First ASSessment Report in 1990 opens its paragraphs of prediction with the words “We predict …”. If, therefore, he objects to the use of the word “predictions” now that the predictions have failed, he should take the matter up not with me but with the IPCC.
Me, I call a spade a spade and a prediction a prediction and a failed prediction a failed prediction.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Annual_time_series_combined1.png
Dennis Horne:
You have resorted to posting very debateable graphs.
But if they were correct then, so what?
Nobody disputes that the Earth has been warming from the Little Ice Age since centuries before the industrial revolution.
Your graphs are merely additional evasions.
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
Mr Horne, at last realizing that merely chanting the “consensus” mantra is not going to impress anyone with scientific training, for most of us here are from a generation to whom logic was taught, has now begun to do some science by posting a pair of graphs showing global temperature rising. However, the point is fairly made in the head posting, which he appears not to have read before presuming to criticize it, that the three terrestrial temperature datasets of longest standing – GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCEI – all show warming over the past 18 years 8 months, albeit at not much more than the equivalent of 1 Celsius degree per century, which is likely to be beneficial rather than life-threatening.
Since he is not aware of much of the history of the climate scare, he should know that until a couple of years ago all datasets – including these three terrestrial datasets – were showing no global warming. The RSS satellite continues, as it did then, to show no warming. But the terrestrial datasets have all been altered to make it seem as though there has been warming this millennium, when their unadjusted versions would probably have shown no warming at all, like the satellite datasets.
The subject of the head posting, however, is not whether or not the world has been warming in the past 18 years 8 months. It may or may not have warmed, depending on which datasets you favor or which storyline you want to peddle. The head posting, however, fairly shows the warming rates on all five datasets from 1990 to now, from 1995 to now, and from 2001 to now (the start dates being the publication years of the IPCC’s First, Second and Third ASSessment reports). It should be evident, on the basis of the graphs provided, that none of the datasets shows warming at anything like the central prediction made by the IPCC in 1990, or for that matter in either of the two subsequent reports.
Data, as has already been explained upthread, trumps mere theory every time. The theory was that from 1990 to now there should have been warming of close to three-quarters of a Celsius degree, but there has not been warming at anything like that rate. The models have failed. They have been compelled to reduce their medium-term predictions so as not to be as badly embarrassed as they were by the wild exaggerations printed in IPCC (1990); but they have not correspondingly reduced their long-term predictions, as they would have done if they were acting professionally rather than politically.
My model considered first generation photon absorption only for a) dry air and b) moist air (water vapour partial pressure 0.023 atmospheres). I then assumed that further excitation/de-excitation collisions would have very little warming effect before the final exit and did not justify the considerable maths/physics reasoning that would be required for a few extra decimal places.
Temperature Anomaly
I don’t like this term. It implies a ‘normal’ temperature. What’s that? Which gremium decides, what is normal and what not?
lorenz:
You ask
Temperature anomalies are a method of pretending the trivial global temperature anomaly rise of ~0.8°C over the last century is significant.
Global temperature rises by 3.8°C from January to June and falls by 3.8°C from June to January each year and nobody notices. Indeed, global temperature is highest when the Earth in its orbit is most distant from the Sun so radiative forcing is lowest. A good explanation of this is here.
Please note that warmunists claim global temperature should be prevented from rising by 2°C. They must be ignorant of the fact that global temperature rises and falls by nearly four times that amount each year while nobody notices.
Richard
Ooops!
I intended
… global temperature rises and falls by nearly TWO times that amount …
Sorry.
Richard
So if you took the temperature of a running bath you would get the same reading no matter where you measured it and whether or not you stirred it — you would get the ‘average’. You wouldn’t get one part very much hotter than another. Even though the average might be lower. It would be perfectly comfortable everywhere.
Ding-ding-ding-a-lingNo bell Prize.
Ok, so somebody decided that the global temperature a hundred years ago was the norm.
Who is this somebody? How did he get to select this specific date?
If I’d have to choose a norm I’d select the roman warm period.
Dennis Horne:
Are you trying for the record of making the most stupid comment ever on WUWT?
Global temperature is an average. Indeed, the erroneous graphs of global temperature that YOU have posted in this thread each provides a time series of averages.
It is a pity that you again demonstrate you cannot read because if you were able to do that then you would have read the link I provided which explains that the seasonal variation of up 3.8°C and down 3.8°C is because temperatures vary by different amounts in the two hemispheres.
3.8°C rise in global temperature IS nearly double the 2°C rise in global temperature warmunists say they want to avoid. Nobody notices the 3.8°C rise.
And the Earth is NOT “comfortable everywhere” (try living in the Sahara or Antarctica equipped for a warm day on Miami Beach).
That ringing you heard, was it between the voices in your head?
And you still have not answered my rebuttals of your twaddle.
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
lorenz:
The climate normal is any period with length of 30 years.
The IPCC AR5 Glossary defines climate as being
So,
climate is ‘average weather’ over any “period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years” but the period needs to be stated.
The 30 years refers to a standard period to which climate data is compared: it is NOT climate. And its length is arbitrary: it was adopted in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) because it was thought that there was insufficient data for use prior to 30 years before 1958. It is an unfortunate choice because 30 years is not a multiple of the solar cycle length, ot the Hale cycle length, or any other climate cycle length.
To obtain a temperature anomaly for a month (e.g. June) the average temperature of 30 successive years of that month (i.e. 30 successive June temperatures) is obtained and that value is subtracted from the average temperature of the month (e.g. another June) to be reported.
Richard
So, we’re moving from a position of no warming and wrong to “exaggerated”.
Dennis Horne:
You again demonstrate your inability to read.
Viscount Monckton did NOT “move”. Read what he wrote.
Your misrepresentation of Viscount Monckton is another evasion.
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
Goodbye,
– Dunce.
Dennis Horne:
“Goodbye”? Do you mean you are leaving?
If you are then I suppose that good news means your paymasters have at last recognised they have been wasting their money.
Richard
Mr Horne should read the head posting before attempting to comment here again. He will find plenty of evidence that the original predictions made by the IPCC in 1990 were wild exaggerations. That is why the IPCC, in subsequent reports, reduced its medium-term predictions very substantially – but not substantially enough. The warming rate – on all datasets – has been falling faster than the predictions have been falling, so the IPCC’s predictions are still exaggerated.
And the head posting does not assert “a position of no warming”. Instead, it shows that the two satellite datasets show no warming, but it also fairly shows that the three longest-standing terrestrial datasets show warming (though they did not do so for this century until a couple of years ago, when the records were all altered to fit the theory – never a good move, because it leaves traces. The most notorious example of outright tampering was the decision by NCEI arbitrarily to alter the ARGO bathythermograph records of sea temperature to bring them into line with the previous sea-temperature record compiled from canvas buckets dipped into the ocean, ships’ engine intakes etc., etc. That piece of desperate and unjustifiable was reported to the Senate Science, Space and Competitiveness Subcommittee, which now no longer believes any of the terrestrial records.
As Senator Cruz and Dr Curry said at the hearing, the satellite data – for all their faults and uncertainties – are the best data we have.
Cruz. The old joke, how do you know when a politician’s lying? Judith Curry: “Satellite data are the best we have”. Just can’t find another climate scientist to agree. Because it’s not true.
Dennis Horne:
Please justify your silly assertion that there are other assessments of the global average temperature anomaly which are as good as the satellite data. Your justification needs to include an independent validation such as the radiosonde (i.e. weather balloon) data provides for the microwave sounding unit (i.e. satellite) data.
Also, you still have failed to address any of my refutations of your previous nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
Richard
Thanks for the explanation and the link.
fits very nicely with my own private definition of climate. 😉
An unusual cold December is no cause for alarm, but a series of those might be.
btw, I just read the ‘Little Ice Age’ Wikipedia article. I find it very funny that
is followed by many examples of worldwide cool periods (Africa, Antarctica, Australia, China…).
lorenz:
Thankyou for your acknowledgement that I was able to provide some help. Please let me know if you think I may be able to help in future.
You mention the distorted wicki report of the LIA.
Wicki is very distorted on everything concerning AGW. So, I think you may want to read the original studies of the LIA collated by ‘CO2 Science’ that can be accessed fromhere.
Also, your interest in the LIA suggests to me that you may enjoy reading studies of the MWP collated in the MWP Project.
Richard
Richard
Thanks for the links.
I bookmarked them for later use.
Lorenz
Monckton of Brenchley should read what’s happening now and stop living in the past.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2016/2015-global-temperature
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/d/2/hadcrut4_graph_small.jpg
Mr Horne should read the head posting. On all datasets, the rate of global warming is well below the IPCC’s wildly exaggerated predictions.
Agreed, the actual warming today may be less than that projected 20 or 25 years ago.
Jolly Good News. Calls for a celebration. Doesn’t it.
Because, without doubt, it’s bad enough. We’ve increased CO2 40% from 280 to 400ppm. With the best agreements in the world, there’s a lot more CO2 to go into the atmosphere.
Of course it would help if intelligent people would stop being silly. Fancy non-scientists thinking they know more than nearly all the climate scientists and informed scientists and scientific societies on the planet.
Dennis Horne:
Sadly, your suggestion that you were leaving was another of your falsehoods, and you have posted more nonsense. But you forgot to address my rebuttals of your earlier nonsense.
You still have failed to address any of my refutations of your nonsense and everybody can see your failure is because you know you have only spouted nonsense.
Richard
Mr Horne should read the head posting. On all datasets, the rate of global warming is well below the IPCC’s wildly exaggerated predictions. Warmer weather is not automatically a bad thing: it is a good thing for most species on Earth, including us.
Yes, the CO2 concentration has risen, but, to the nearest tenth of one per cent. If there is CO2 in the air it will cause some warming, but on balance not very much.
richardscourtney January 19, 2016 at 3:04 am
** richardscourtney January 14, 2016 at 2:02 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment
Abstracting and indexing
According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2012 impact factor of 0.319, ranking it 90th out of 93 journals in the category “Environmental Studies”.[5]
Criticism
According to a 2011 article in The Guardian, Gavin Schmidt and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. said that E&E has had low standards of peer review and little impact.[8] In addition, Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, “Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?”[8][9]
Climate change skepticism
When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Boehmer-Christiansen said, “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”[12]
No wonder the climate scientists ignore you.
You suffer delusions of grandeur.
Dennis Horne,
E&E is a recognized peer reviw journal.
From someone who trumpets ‘peer reviewed science’, you are certainly being hypocritical. Either an author is peer reviewed, or he isn’t.
The proper way to argue is to find out if Richard Courtney was forced, (like Michael Mann), to issue a debunkibg Corrigendum, then admitting that there were serious errors in his paper. If you could find a retraction or correction of some sort, your argument would carry weight.
But you’re just being juvenile and a poor loser in your last comments. And I note that you never answered the question: what’s your CV?
Crickets…
Post it here, if you have one, chump. Otherwise, your opinion is not credible, while Courtney’s is.
Is Richard S Courtney a scientist? I don’t think so. He’s a PR man or something like that who had his views printed in a magazine or journal that has no scientific standing whatsoever. That’s not my opinion, it’s clearly general knowledge.
If I decide to lash out against nearly every informed scientist and scientific society in the world then ask me for my credentials. Otherwise they’re irrelevant.
All one needs to accept such a long-standing and broadly-based scientific consensus is a rational mind.
Naturally if someone really clever and informed can prove it wrong, we can all relax. And rejoice.
Dennis Horne,
You never answer the question: what is your CV? Do you even have one? How are you qualified to give an opinion? Are you a scientist?? Yes or no? If yes, prove it. Richard already has.
Richard Courtney is a published, peer reviewed author. You, of all people, lack the credibility to decide which publications are acceptable. In fact, because of your one-trick-pony endlessly repeating the ‘appeal to corrupted-authorities’ logical fallacy, and your ad hominem logical fallacy here, it’s clear you have no other arguments. You lose.
[Comment deleted. Identity thief/sockpuppet. -mod]
Dawtgtomis is gonna be mad that an identity thief has stolen his name.
Dennis Horne:
Nobody cares that you know nothing about me.
My entire income in my adult life was from my employment as a research scientist. Not only am I not a “PR man or something like that”, my health prevents me being anything like that.
I have published in journals including Nature and Microscopy but I am most pleased to have published in E&E: Energy & Environment is indexed in the ISI and is cited 28 times in the IPCC reports .
Now, if you were able to refute my work you would, but you cannot so you make spurious comments about me. Sad, very sad.
Richard
Horne says:
Is Richard S Courtney a scientist? I don’t think so.
The juvenile site pest D. Horne still avoids disclosing having an education, if any, that could support his opinions. Horne would get a promotion up to ignoramus if he posted his hard science accomplishments.
So, Horne, what qualifies you to give an opinion on a published, peer reviewed author?
Monckton of Brenchley January 21, 2016 at 1:26 pm
No CO2 no greenhouse effect. No greenhouse effect and we’d all be freezing. Wouldn’t we.
No, because there is enough water vapour (partial pressure 0.023 atmospheres) with much wider absorption bands than CO2.
Thank you. How much water vapour would there be if the surface temperature were -18 Celsius?
At -18C the moisture content of air is 1480ppm.
chemengrls,
Don’t bother trying to explain, it’s way over D. Horne’s head. He just doesn’t understand.
[American Chemical Society]
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3.
The water vapour carrying capacity of air is very high; at 40C it is 79000ppm, 27C 35000ppm, 20C 23000ppm, 0 deg C 6050ppm in a form that will absorb LWIR. Even at 0 deg C it is 20 times greater than CO2. It is also a scrubbing agent on condensation, with a large interfacial area that will effectively scrub out CO2, and oxides of N2 (CH4 is only 1ppm and not worth bothering about).
dbstealey January 21, 2016 at 2:00 pm
If you were ill would you seek the opinion of doctors qualified in the field and accept the consensus or would you seek the opinion of cranks, quacks, barefoot doctors and one or two doctors dismissed by their colleagues as having a bee in their bonnets?
No doubt you would if they said there was nothing wrong with you.
Because your judgement is unsound. You’re handicapped by wishful thinking.
Dennis Horne,
You quoted the wrong part. Here’s the question you need to answer:
You never answer the question: what is your CV? Do you even have one? How are you qualified to give an opinion? Are you a scientist?? Yes or no? If yes, prove it. Richard already has.
A central characteristic of the alarmist contingent is that you hide out from answering questions. I’ll be happy to answer yours, like I have many times. But since you never answer questions, it’s your turn. Answer the question I asked.
Richard [S Courtney] already has [proved he is a scientist]
Where?
D. Horne,
I know why you won’t answer a simple question. You have no credibility. You’re just another uneducated lemming who parrots nonsense.
And that is why you won’t post your CV: you don’t have any credible education in the hard sciences.
So you try to make up for your inadequacy by attacking the accomplishments of a published, peer reviewed author:
Is Richard S Courtney a scientist? I don’t think so.
What you think does not matter. You’re surely the most pathetic commenter in this thread. If you can prove you’re qualified to pass judgement on someone who knows far more about the subject than you can ever hope to learn, I will retract and apologize.
But we all know the truth, don’t we? You’re nothing.
Are global average temperature rising? Hmm, let me see…
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1850-to-2015-temps-no-rss.png
WARNING: Arstechnica is infested with spyware, and twice now they’ve been hacked and lost the personal info of readers.
That aside, as usual Horne presumes that global warming is man made. But he doesn’t have any credible evidence for his belief system. Show him any chart of rising temps, and he gets all excited. heh…
WARNING. Arstechnica. Can you the truth?
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2014/12/ars-was-briefly-hacked-yesterday-heres-what-we-know/
[Reply: it is a fact that AT has had major security problems. Their response is self-serving. Linking to the same blog means very little. -mod]
Horne,
The only thing you’ve shown is natural global warming as the planet rebounds from the LIA. If AGW was being added, the warming would be accelerating.
But it’s not. In fact, despite the full court press by politicians who crave a carbon tax and their tame, rent seeking scientists, global warming stopped many years ago. Only credulous fools believe otherwise.
Figure 1. How Does CO2 Compare To Other Climate Drivers?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.VqGs6Pl97tQ
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/climate-influence-faq.PNG
D. Horne,
That chart is the most preposterous bunch of self-serving nonsense I’ve seen in a long time. It is a stupid magnet; that’s how it attracted you.
Water vapor is by far the biggest climate driver outside of the sun and oceans, but they parse water vapor, saying “water vapor from methane”
That’s just another example of the UN/IPCC’s duplicity. Intelligent folks aren’t swayed by nonsense like that. But you’ve been convinced, LOL!
Since 2002 there has been NO global warming. NONE. So their “human induced Climate Drivers” is falsified as total nonsense. IPCC pronouncements are only swallowed by the gullible.
That’s you, Horne.
Since 2002 there has been NO global warming. NONE. So their “human induced Climate Drivers” is falsified as total nonsense. IPCC pronouncements are only swallowed by the gullible.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported 2015 the warmest worldwide since 1880, breaking the previous 2014 record by the widest margin ever observed. During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62F (0.90C) above the 20 C average,
NASA confirmed 2015 broke records for heat in contemporary times.
Doesn’t look like a fair fight, dbstealey. Looks like “they” are all out to “get you”.
And you believe everything they tell you, Mr. Credulous?
Both NOAA and NASA/GISS have repeatedly ‘adjusted’ the temperature record — and their ‘adjustments’ always end up showing more scary warming. What are the odds of that, eh?
You are being led by an invisible ring in your nose, by corrupt bureaucrats who know exactly what they’re doing. But you can’t see it, because you like not thinking for yourself.
You wild-eyed Chicken Littles are terrified that CO2 has risen by one (1) part in ten thousand over the past century, and you’ve been convinced by charlatans that the result will be climate catastrophe. Every comment of yours reveals more ignorance. I’m astonished that someone with zero accomplishments like you isn’t embarrassed to post talking points as if he understands.
Have you got something against body piercings?
Have you got something against body piercings?
I was wondering about that hole in your head.
Hole in the head? [snip]
richardscourtney January 22, 2016 at 10:10 am
Richard, my apologies. Published in nature, eh, that’s very impressive.
[Ad-homs and “denier” links snipped. -mod.]
You can understand how anyone could make a mistake. Please accept my apologies.
D. Horne:
It’s still unclear which person is which, but no matter. I am impressed with whomever is being so jealously reported upon in your posted links (and what, may I ask, is a “denier”? What is being denied? Be specific… oh, forget it. You won’t answer anyway).
I’m impressed with both individuals, and unlike you, the person linked has accomplished all those things and has my respect. He is impressive, doing work you can only dream about as you wait on lunch patrons. The jealous ‘desmog’ writers don’t report on the other person, leaving readers to guess which is which. But no one has to guess about you, because we know. Don’t we?
You’ve been asked many times to post your own accomplishments, to the sound of crickets chirping. So we know what that means:
It means you have no accomplishments. You are a human zero. A nothing. A failure. It shows in your comments, which are simple-minded parroting of similar nothings.
Prove me wrong, chump. Now’s your chance. Post your CV, and prove me wrong, LOL!
Dennis Horne:
You made no “mistake”. You made a vitrioic and untrue personal attack against me as an attempt to deflect from the fact that you have not and cannot answer my rebuttals of nonsense you have posted in this thread.
Richard
I made no comments other than what appears above, so the accusation of ad hominem is entirely false. I never mentioned the word den***. I did link to two sites describing a man of the same name who is a fake.
richardscourtney January 23, 2016 at 1:16 am
Where?
Dennis Horne,
If you would stop your envious ad hominem attacks and just debate science, you could save millions of pixels.
But first, post your qualifications. I think you’re an [trimmed].
Prove me wrong. If you can.
[Please do not insult uneducated parrots by comparing them to trolls. Sometimes they repeat the truth, though they know not what they are saying. .mod]
Dennis Horne:
You are still trying to deflect from the fact that you have not and cannot answer my rebuttals of the nonsense you have posted in this thread. And your post I am now answering is more untrue nonsense posed as a silly question
Richard
Not on here they wouldn’t.
Nearly all climate scientists and informed scientists and every scientific society on the planet VERSUS …
Dennis Horne
Studies quoting (government-paid) “scientists” find 97% (well, only 75 of 13,500 scientists surveyed)
Nearly allclimate scientists are government-paid slavishly addicted to the continued government-funding only made possible by government bureaucrats and politicians desiring the 1.3 trillions in control of the new carbon taxes made possible by and enabling the government-donors in the 31 trillion annual carbon trading schemes invented by ENRON in the 1990’s …Studies of “so-called” scientific societies find their heads and leaders are following their money, their politics, and are only united denying their members ANY voice in the bureaucratic claims made by their bureaucratic administrators to the government bureaucrats.
RACookPE1978 January 23, 2016 at 12:31 pm
Why didn’t I think of that?
Thank goodness for “so-called” experts who don’t belong to scientific societies to put me right.
Why didn’t I think of that?
Must… resist… temptation…