Gosh, a new model based study ‘puts temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions on the map’

From the “linear thinking doesn’t follow reality” department, comes this stunning revelation that sounds pretty much just like every other press release about climate we’ve ever read. Plus, they’ve got a map!

A new study puts temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions on the map

Concordia research findings can be used to show the impact of human activity on local climate

Montreal, Jan. 20, 2016 — Earth’s temperature has increased by 1°C over the past century, and most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. But what does that mean locally?

A new study published in Nature Climate Change pinpoints the temperature increases caused by CO¬2 [sic] emissions in different regions around the world.

Using simulation results from 12 global climate models, Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia’s Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, along with post-doctoral researcher Martin Leduc, produced a map that shows how the climate changes in response to cumulative carbon emissions around the world.

Concordia research findings can be used to show the impact of human activity on local climate

This is a map of climate change.CREDIT Nature Climate Change

They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions.

“This provides a simple and powerful link between total global emissions of carbon dioxide and local climate warming,” says Matthews. “This approach can be used to show how much human emissions are to blame for local changes.”

Leduc and Matthews, along with co-author Ramo?n [sic] de Eli?a [sic] from Ouranos, a Montreal-based consortium on regional climatology, analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Globally, the researchers saw an average temperature increase of 1.7 ±0.4°C per trillion tonnes of carbon in CO2 emissions (TtC), which is consistent with reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But the scientists went beyond these globally averaged temperature rises, to calculate climate change at a local scale.

At a glance, here are the average increases per trillion tonnes of carbon that we emit, separated geographically:

Western North America 2.4 ± 0.6°C
Central North America 2.3 ± 0.4°C
Eastern North America 2.4 ± 0.5°C
Alaska 3.6 ± 1.4°C
Greenland and Northern Canada 3.1 ± 0.9°C
North Asia 3.1 ± 0.9°C
Southeast Asia 1.5 ± 0.3°C
Central America 1.8 ± 0.4°C
Eastern Africa 1.9 ± 0.4°C

“As these numbers show, equatorial regions warm the slowest, while the Arctic warms the fastest. Of course, this is what we’ve already seen happen — rapid changes in the Arctic are outpacing the rest of the planet,” says Matthews.

There are also marked differences between land and ocean, with the temperature increase for the oceans averaging 1.4 ± 0.3°C TtC, compared to 2.2 ± 0.5°C for land areas.

“To date, humans have emitted almost 600 billion tonnes of carbon,” says Matthews. “This means that land areas on average have already warmed by 1.3°C because of these emissions. At current emission rates, we will have emitted enough CO¬2 [sic] to warm land areas by 2°C within 3 decades.”

###

Related links:

Cited study http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2913.html

566 thoughts on “Gosh, a new model based study ‘puts temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions on the map’

  1. Concordia is “last chance university” for those who can’t get in the better places. Its an ‘arts’ college.

    • … last chance university …

      I thought that was Carleton University. :-)

      Canada has only a couple of universities that make it into the upper echelon of the world’s universities. On the other hand, it has no really crappy schools such as are found in certain other jurisdictions.

      Concordia can be thought of as the local English speaking university in Montreal. Local students go there. International students go to McGill.

      • so place like Canada and Russia that are bitterly cold will receive the most warming, while places like the tropics that are already warm will receive the least warming.

        so please tell me again what is wrong with this? most folks in Canada and Russia pay a skit full of $$ every year just to keep from freezing. Most of the time all we can grow is ice.

    • What happened to Newton’s law of cooling? It works for my cup of coffee in the morning, but not on the climate? Who knew! Isn’t the entropy of the universe always on an upward march? Isn’t the air swirling around all the time? Doesn’t the air temperature even out?

      • A better analogy is if you put your morning coffee in a plastic box, and put that under a heater lamp. You can even poke a bunch of holes in the plastic box to help simulate the heat-transparency of the atmosphere.

        Sure the law works. It’s your model that is broken.

        [Pleased login with only one user_id and email address. .mod]

      • hi andy. Still ongoing with abuse – fortunately I have the wherewithal to not only understand what youre asking, despite the vitriol, but give you what is (i hope) a correct answer.

        One of the notable things einstein did was explore the nature of the photoelectric effect. Now, to explain what is going on, he had to come up with a model, and test it. His model was that an electron must absorb – not a continuus spectra of energies, but discrete “packages” – that is: an electron must absorb an entire electron, not a piece of it.
        The model is important because it implied photons were discrete packages of energy, simply turning up the energy per photon did not increase the number of electrons ejected, but increasing the intensity (i.e. the number of photons) did. This was interesting because the question of the time was regarding the nature of a photon- wave or particle. Einstine showed a photon can be regarded as a particle. I assume you know the rest of that discussion, but actually quantum mechanics (which annoyed einstein) showed a photon is BOTH a wave and a particle, and what happens depends on how you generate the interaction.

        In science a “model” need not be an explicit computer-based simulation, it is an attempt to describe a physical process in more familiar terms: as you might know, an electron is hardly a ball of hard matter, its fuzzy, rather ambiguously positioned and is pretty hard to bounce anything off, much less hit it with a photon, yet the model einstein created to explain his observed effect is so robustly consistent with observation, the model is regarded as fact.

        There see? not too hard to watch science in action.

      • Oh dear, poor caitie..

        Seems you have no idea how to keep responses in the right place…

        You still have 3 simple questions to answer.

        Research time little goule. !!

      • I didn’t see any mention of measurements here. Surely after you do a theoretical calculation, you need to verify the numbers actually match the measurements?

      • bonzono on January 20, 2016 at 5:15 pm

        A better analogy is if you put your morning coffee in a plastic box, and put that under a heater lamp. You can even poke a bunch of holes in the plastic box to help simulate the heat-transparency of the atmosphere.

        bonzono (of the many forms),

        Speaking of better or worse analogies of models, the worse model analogy invented is that the Earth Atmospheric System (EAS) is like an agricultural greenhouse.

        John

      • I like this analogy: What is the average color of your tv for the year? And how relevant is it to any particular program you may watch?
        100 years worth of data is not measuring climate in my eyes. That is a blip on the chart. We are either coming out of glaciation or going into it.

    • That was my first criticism Gary, but then I noticed the article was published in Nature.

      I publish in Nature. Members of my family also publish there. I have to express strong disappointment with Nature’s editorial staff. In their defense, I’ll make note of the fact this was a “letter” rather than a refereed article. I suppose that should carry some weight, but I’ve also noticed an editorial bias towards publishing absurd psuedo-scientific flapdoodle like this.

      Personally? I’m disgusted and will never submit a paper to Nature again.

      • Bartle, how about you publish to nature and refute the finding?
        Surely that is the most sensible way to show the findings are wrong. Since you have a rapport with the editorial staff and claim your research is of the calibre that appear in nature, this should be no problem.

        I await your citation.

      • Bartleby has never published in Nature or, I daresay, anywhere else. He seems to think that publishing there is like shopping in a supermarket. “I shop at Food Tiger. Members of my family also publish there. I am disgusted with their cashiers and will never shop there again.” “Members of my family”, fergossake! Also, Letters to Nature are refereed articles. (Unrefereed stuff is in Correspondence.)

      • “I don’t care a straw for your newspaper articles; my constituents don’t know how to read, but they can’t help seeing them damned pictures.”

        – William “Boss” Tweed

  2. “This provides a simple and powerful link between total global emissions of carbon dioxide and local climate warming,” says Matthews.

    Using simulated results? No. No, it does not provide a link of any kind.

    • Like the Geico commercials: if you are a climate model, predicting temperature rise with CO2 rise is what you do.

    • They’re semi empirical. You can also model a car crash that shows a link between the destructive power of a lamp post and a ferrari – noone would bother to question the validity of that simulated result.
      So yes, it does. Modelling is how science works. it’s EXACTLY the scientific method. If you dont like the SM or you think it’s complete junk, thats okay. Put down your computer, your clothes, your house, your medicine, your breakfast, and walk away.

      • The SM says if the real world does not do what your model said it would the model is wrong. Which model has got it right?

      • Hold on a second, models that have no bearing on observable reality or utility as a predicative model are “how science is done?”

        Man I need to go beat my 2d grade Science teacher’s ass for an hour for failing me for writing what the bean should have done rather than what it did.

        Thanks for the heads up champ.

      • Janice Moore

        CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

        Usually, it seems more effective to show all the responses.

        Over the past many decades,
        While CO2 was rose very little, global average temperatures rose strongly. 30 years
        While CO2 was rose very little, global average temperatures were steady. 15 years
        While CO2 was rose very little, global average temperatures fell slightly. 10 years
        While CO2 rose moderately, global average temperatures decreased. 20 years
        While CO2 rose moderately, global average temperatures were steady. 12 years
        While CO2 rose moderately, global average temperatures rose noticeably. 20 years
        While CO2 rose significantly, global average temperatures were steady. 18 years

        Now, what exactly is the supposed relationship between CO2 and global average temperatures?

      • ” Modelling is how science works. it’s EXACTLY the scientific method ”

        Not really. I can model a beautiful anti gravity spaceship with applied physics. I have only one problem with it. It doesn’t work.

        The SM has to equate to reality. AGW doesn’t. AGW is flawed at best and fraud at worst. We are not talking about computers, clothes, housing medicine or food. We are talking about the deranged people who think that a trace gas is going to upend a complex, dynamic climate system with many variables. Have you examined the record of co2? There is something wrong with the year to year increases. This is just for starters. There are no negative numbers. The sink is currently so large that it is completely swallowing the entire co2 production in 1965 by 150%.

      • sigh.. j.

        Scientists reported data that showed what you interpret as a hiatus.. valid if the later measurements continued that trend, which they didn’t.

        http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784

        one more time j.

        The data supporting the interpretation of “stopping” does not exist.
        really. There’s an imaginary bee in someone’s bonnet about this. you can relax.

      • i got stung? by someone who refuses to look at the facts and data?
        hmm, not sure why you think arguing from an uninformed position is appropriate or even intelligent. I prefer to be informed. It’s usually not too hard.

      • ” Modelling is how science works. it’s EXACTLY the scientific method. ”

        FALSE ! Modelling is “hypothesis” under the Scientific Method. HY-PO-THE-SIS! A model is a hypothesis – it is not observational reality.

        It is shocking you did not know this – given how strident your posts are.

      • “by someone who refuses to look at the facts and data?”

        Yep, stung by yourself.

        Again… too ignorant to realise it

      • rash, I’m sorry I was unclear.
        Modelling is critical to, but not the only component of the scientific method.

        if your model of antigrav spaceship won’t work, then you have to correct the model – that would be the process – or at least, a slightly larger part of it.

      • “Modelling is critical to… blah blah…”

        Really ? so explain what modelling Einstein did?

        You really don’t have much idea about science, do you. !!!

        So funny !. Please keep posting..

      • [mod, this was posted above, in reply to a different poster: please delete the above entry as you see fit.]

        hi andy. Still ongoing with abuse – fortunately I have the wherewithal to not only understand what youre asking, despite the vitriol, but give you what is (i hope) a correct answer.

        One of the notable things einstein did was explore the nature of the photoelectric effect. Now, to explain what is going on, he had to come up with a model, and test it. His model was that an electron must absorb – not a continuus spectra of energies, but discrete “packages” – that is: an electron must absorb an entire electron, not a piece of it.
        The model is important because it implied photons were discrete packages of energy, simply turning up the energy per photon did not increase the number of electrons ejected, but increasing the intensity (i.e. the number of photons) did. This was interesting because the question of the time was regarding the nature of a photon- wave or particle. Einstine showed a photon can be regarded as a particle. I assume you know the rest of that discussion, but actually quantum mechanics (which annoyed einstein) showed a photon is BOTH a wave and a particle, and what happens depends on how you generate the interaction.

        In science a “model” need not be an explicit computer-based simulation, it is an attempt to describe a physical process in more familiar terms: as you might know, an electron is hardly a ball of hard matter, its fuzzy, rather ambiguously positioned and is pretty hard to bounce anything off, much less hit it with a photon, yet the model einstein created to explain his observed effect is so robustly consistent with observation, the model is regarded as fact.

        There see? not too hard to watch science in action.

      • Ahem – not only do they question the validity of such models the authorities REQUIRE that standard crash tests are carried out on all vehicles sold,

        Modelling is NOT the scientific method its merely a tool. To be scientific you have to test your model against reality. In the case of climate models the result so far is a fail.

      • Hi moa, just to point out.
        “FALSE ! Modelling is “hypothesis” ”

        I agree, it is. I use the words synonymously. When one constructs an hypothesis, it is an attempt to explain (i.e. model) the process.

        “a model” can be simply a few equations on a page, or it can be a sophisticated computer simulation. Either way, it is an attempt to explain the observations.

      • Keith,
        I didn’t mean you to interpret what I said as modelling and only modelling being the SM. It’s one of the many critical steps, and as you say:
        “To be scientific you have to test your model against reality.”
        True.

        then
        “In the case of climate models the result so far is a fail.”
        not true in every case, but of course, the SM (as you agree), is not simply modelling nor comparison, it also requires modification of the model and re-testing. That models are wrong or not does not mean the SM is being ignored. If a model is wrong and then continually asserted to be right, then the SM is being ignored. The fact that the word on AGW is ongoing is testimony to the fact that the SM is not being ignored in this case.

        I might also point out that the model of a “round earth” is also being tested, and long since found to be wrong – it was a suitable model for navigation etc, for sailing boats, but insufficient for modern accurate GPS. The model is updated – again, not infinitely accurately and more refinements to the model will occur. It’s the method. it works.

      • CC said :” You can also model a car crash that shows a link between the destructive power of a lamp post and a ferrari – noone would bother to question the validity of that simulated result.”

        Weak analogy, just plain wrong.
        Repeatability and criteria for real world validation of simulated crash tests is an integral component of scientific crash testing. Clearly, some models are worthless.
        Is the lamp post iron or plastic? Is the car fiberglass or steel? Is it a diecast Ferrari or a full-size model? How fast is the car going?
        I can also model some entirely different simulated occurrence that looks exactly like a car crash but isn’t at all, using the same lamp post and car you do, but without a real world validation procedure you wouldn’t know the difference, and apparently wouldn’t bother to check for yourself either, since “no one would bother to question the validity of it”.

        In the case of the above article “Using simulation results from 12 global climate models,”, the main problem is that not one of the models this entire exercise in doomsday fantasy is based on have been validated in or by the real world observations. In fact the opposite has happened. If you have discovered some IPCC projected climate model that has been validated by real world observations, please share it with us. A model to validate a falsified model when real world observations are to be easily accessed is not science at all..
        Here’s a “model” to think about : GIGO

      • Cait the model of AGW doesn’t work. That’s the point. Whatever your interpretation of the data is, the fact of the matter is that not one of predictions/projections made in 2000 has failed to materialize. When you make a prediction based on AGW and they fail, AGW fails. A belief system that is requires no validation is a religion. The mere fact we are having this inane conversation proves that. AGW has transcended into a religion. The time line for diaster from AGW has passed.

      • Hello Rishrac,
        Firstly – that’ is by far the sanest post I’ve seen on this site. Measured, relevant, factual and simply delivered. I like it.

        True, to some extent the predictions made by AGW in 2000 were inaccurate – it’s true to say then that the models and hypothesis at that point, were wrong – critically in some aspects. Obviously the models used in 2000 were wrong
        Clearly then the next stage of the SM must prevail – the model cannot explain the observed phenomenon – obviously the model has to be changed – and changed it is, and it will continue to change until it has converged on something negligibly different from describing actuality.

        It might be that AGW is utterly wrong – but that is not clearly shown to be the case, therefore it is dishonest to throw it out at this point – you can only do that when you can incontrovertibly PROVE that element is insignificant to the model – which is not the case at this point.

        So- it is honest to continue to develop and test models – and testing them is what the researchers in this paper here are trying to do.

        Anyhow rishrac, what impressed me most what the calibre and tone of your post. There’s a heck of a lot of vitriol on this page. and your post is certainly one of the more sane and intelligible.

    • Andy, I have to admit, you’ve confused me.
      J’s was maintaining there is a pause in warming. The article I linked to showed that while there is a pause, it’s not significant and the trend is now consistent with the trend. i.e. a hiatus is not statistically significant.

      Now, – that was the substance of the article I linked to. Are you saying you didn’t understand the article, or are you saying you interpreted that article to say that warming “stopped”?

      I find no reason at all in that article, that you, or anyone could reasonably interpret it that way, but you are free to explain yourself. Youre also free to continue to rant and expectorate at me without recourse to actually justifying the deluge of prepubescent attempts insult. I suspect you will adopt the latter – care to prove me right?

      • You didn’t SERIOUSLY link to a Lewendowsky article did you?

        From the ridiculous to the bizarre. :-)

        You are the one trying to impune everyone else’s intelligence in your every post..

        , then you start crying when you get some kick-up.. PATHETIC.

      • Thank andy for confirming my hypothesis that you rely heavily on insult and bullying to make a point. Of course, that you fail to understand a slew of aspects ranging from simple thermal dynamics, to the way einstein develop his nobel-prize winning science, to the way decay processes are understood to operate might lead anyone else to the conclusion you’re just trolling. And you might be, I dont know – it’s not a conclusion I’m making because it’s irrelevant.

        Andy, as I always say- if you can prove me wrong in anything, go ahead. So far all you’ve presented is prepubescent angry vitriol and a slew of examples of poor grasp of fundamental aspects.

        Oh and you’ve confirmed my hypothesis that there is little factual substance to your posts and you indulge almost exclusively in abuse to .. well, you dont actually make a point.. you just rant :D

      • “Of course, that you fail to understand a slew of aspects ranging from simple thermal dynamics”

        roflmao..

        There you go again, trying in vain to impune other people’s intelligence.. as you have from the word go.

        Yet you have produce nothing with any real facts in it at all.. just irrelevant ranting.

        where are your so-called facts and supporting evidence?

        You have so far totally ignore all the REAL data showing that

        Antarctic is NOT warming
        Antarctic is gaining mass
        Arctic is cooling since the AM switched

        You have refused to answer basic questions about residence time and height of CO2 re-emittance

        The only article I can see you link to is one from Lewendowsky.. enuff said.

        You have NOTHING

        I’m not angry.. I’m laughing at you…. you are seriously hilarious.. :-)

      • CC,

        I’m just curious. If the pause is not significant, why have so many “climate scientists” published so many papers with so many different explanations of what caused the pause?

      • Yeah caitie c., but stick around and the data will be changed again. They’ve now turned their attention to the elephant in their living room- satellite temperatures- you know those billion dollar instruments put up by NASA that have given us all that data on earth, Mars, Titan, etc. etc and validated by findings of the Mars Rovers, etc. We can’t have these pesky instruments ruining our theory. Will you change your tune when they trash those? Only if your world view is not too ideologically anchored.

      • phil
        good question – I would suppose they do it because it’s perfectly valid to test an hypothesis. in this case, the hypothesis would be something like
        “in the case the pause is significant, it could be explained by, for example, blahblahblah”
        Bear in mind that if the trends continue, then the longer time goes on, and the more data we take, the less significant the pause will become. Its valid to explore an hypothesis and even conclude, later data may render that conclusion ultimately untenable. Thats okay, its how it all works.

      • hi gary
        Yes of course the data will change. i dont find that surprising, in fact, it’s necessary. I’m not sure why you think a satellite that observed titan has much to do with global warming measurements – i mean they do, but very indirectly . care to elaborate on your point?

      • Caitiecaitie,

        The article you linked to looks for a pause in warming in the GISS temperature series. There is clearly no pause in the recently adjusted data of GISS but there is a very clear pause in the UAH and Remote Sensing satellite based temperature series.

      • So – let’s have a look. The pause couldn’t be explained. It was recognized by most agencies/groups and obvious in the data (even the NOAA/NASA adjusted stuff). Then 20 or so “excuses” were put forward to account for the pause. Nothing worked until the temperature records were once again “adjusted”. This time it was ocean temps using horse and buggy data from the past. Then those who couldn’t figure out the pause started to try to discredit satellite temperature records. Hey-hey! There is no pause! Real solid science, right?

    • The IPCC and the climate models continue to use a 1% annual growth in CO2 concentration, but the real value using Mauna Loa data for 40 years is closer to 0.5% and about 0.55% for the last 20 years. Over time this is a big difference. Emmision growth is close to 1%, but about one half is absorbed by the planet. This also means CO2 will remain for a shorter time in the atmosphere than claimed if emission growth rate is reduced.

    • Maybe that’s why we should defund NASA. If after spending billions on all those weather satellites and they aren’t giving the”right” data we should quit building them and using them. (sarc, hmmm, well maybe not))

  3. Gosh, the nail in the coffin of doubtful Warm because of Co2 sceptics – NOT!

    Any lie, any adjustment, any fraud for the grant money train.

    • I’m constantly bewildered by the claim that all scientists are paid more, are more powerful and are richer than the coal and oil lobby.

      Really TG? You think researchers are into research because it’s a lucrative employment with high likelihood of massive financial return?

      You think the oil barons in the middle east are wealthier than your average climate change scientist?

      Quick question TG – given the option to get shares in the oil industustry, or the climate change research industry, which do you think is more likely to give you a return? Which, TG, is more lucrative?

      It’s pretty astonishing this perception that scientists are fabulously wealthy, and uniformly pervert the scientific method to obtain billions..
      Oil barons, sure. Research? are you kidding TG? I hope so.

      • caitiecaitie .
        Endless climate conference’s all on the taxpayers dime = Billions of $ to promote CLOBULL WARMING by every western country, to the rent-seeking grant taker’s to spew their lies and endless adjustments to the real temperature records.
        You have to have your head buried somewhere to come on WUWT and spout such ignorant crap.

      • “Endless climate conference’s all on the taxpayers dime”
        I see, and going to a conference is a recreational activity? or is it work?

        You seem to object to people spending money on science. Do you?
        I wonder, have you ever been to qatrr? You get a pretty good idea of the wealth that the oil barons splash around for luxury. Do you think ANY research scientists has wealth like that?

        The lucrative industry is oil. Not research.
        Talking about facts is hardly trolling.
        Simply dismissing factually and reasonably supported comments with “it’s crap” however, certainly is.

        You stick with the trolling. I’ll stick with the reasoning. okay?

      • Marcus,
        correct.

        The issue at hand was if the arctic ice is melting over the last 7 years, which it is.

        The other matter regarding ocean level rise – this won’t occur if the north pole melts, but it will if the south pole melts, and/or extant glacial ice.

      • caitiecaitie

        The issue at hand was if the arctic ice is melting over the last 7 years, which it is.

        Hmmmn. This plot is for models of the arctic sea ice mass, not area, but for the past 6 years (2010 – 2016) the arctic sea ice mass has been increasing, while its area has remained essentially steady. That you claim it is melting does mean it is actually melting.

        But, since the middle of 2005 (that would be slightly over 10 years), the arctic sea ice area anomaly has been oscillating steadily at right around -1.0 million sq kilometers. So, whatever 70 year cycle or natural change or polar bear shitte piles caused it to “change” from its 1979-1990 average of +1.0 Mkm^2 to -1.0 Mkm^2, the effect has NOT done ANYTHING to further melt arctic sea ice since 2005. In fact for almost all of the past 18 months, arctic sea ice area has been hovering right at the -2 std deviation levels all the time. Not increasing to be sure, but not decreasing either.

        Oh, by the way, losing more arctic sea ice 7 months of the years means increased cooling losses from the open arctic ocean overall – NOT an hotter arctic ocean as you seem to think.

      • Trouble is , little brain-dead ditz, tis that Arctic sea ice has been increasing since the AMO started to decrease.

        You do know what the AMO is , don’t you , ditz?

      • “but it will if the south pole melts”

        roflmoa !

        The southern ice isn’t going anywhere.!!

        You really are an ignorant little troll, caitie ! :-)

      • “the arctic sea ice mass has been increasing, while its area has remained essentially steady. That you claim it is melting does mean it is actually melting.”

        Fail: The data show the area is decreasing steadily. for the last ~ 40 years.

        I see a nice downward trend in the image you show, so did the people who made the plot – they even put errors on it in grey. There is certainly jitter in that grey, but you’d have to be pretty desperate to claim there is no obvious downward trend WELL outside the errors.

        You seem to be making the claim that the departure from the clear trend over the years since 2010 is somehow statistically significant. it’s not. it’s easily not. Moreover and as if to underscore how inappropriate that conclusion is, there is an additional (and actually significant) departure from the downward trend (down then up) at around 1982. Still, the ensemble continues its downward trend.

        that lovely image you shows confirms beyond any doubt the arctic sea mass is falling significantly and measurably, it does not confirm a significant departure in recent years – do you know what “significant” means? it means “outside the grey”.

        I’m frankly astonished at the bad grasps of statistics that people seem to show here -it’s not that hard people!

      • You seem to be making the claim that the departure from the clear trend over the years since 2010 is somehow statistically significant. it’s not. it’s easily not. Moreover and as if to underscore how inappropriate that conclusion is, there is an additional (and actually significant) departure from the downward trend (down then up) at around 1982. Still, the ensemble continues its downward trend.

        that lovely image you shows confirms beyond any doubt the arctic sea mass is falling significantly and measurably, it does not confirm a significant departure in recent years – do you know what “significant” means? it means “outside the grey”.

        I’m frankly astonished at the bad grasps of statistics that people seem to show here -it’s not that hard people!

        Agaiun, my words are very specific. Over the past 10 years, arctic sea ice area anomalies have been steady at -1.0 Mkm^2. I recognized the earlier period of a seemingly static +1.0 Mkm^2 , that then decreased down to the 2004 – 2005 values. Arctic sea ice areas have NOT decreased since that period, and arctic sea ice volumes appear to have increased the past 5-6 years. ( You seem to think that a linear trend in climate means something, when EVERY trend in climate EVER measured is cyclical. We don’t know all of the cycles, but NONE are linear. NO linear trend in climate can be extrapolated into the future. You are attempting to draw a straight line past the periods I mentioned, as if that somehow means those 5 year increase and that 10 year length of no continued losses did not exist.

        the more CO2 increases, the further from reality the models become.
        You still have not addressed the even longer increase in Antarctic sea ice, recently interrupted by declines in August, October, and January. Will you again try to claim “winds” and a “melting antarctic ice cap” are actually diluting salty antarctic sea water 1200 kilometers away from the shoreline? If a long term increase in antarctic sea ice is caused by a decrease in antarctic surface continental ice, then what caused the recent temporary decline in antarctic sea ice? (By the way, surface antarctic temperatures have NOT been increasing, only the shoreline of the antarctic peninsula has heated slightly, in regions around the volcanoes)

      • It’s amusing how the alarmist cult cherry-picks the Arctic. Global ice is what matters, since the basic debate is over global warming — which stopped many years ago.

        The Antarctic contains ≈10X the volume of Arctic ice, and Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing for decades. Thus, global ice remains well within its long term parameters.

        So another alarmist scare is debunked. That keeps their streak alive: 100.0% of all the scary, alarming predictions they ever made have turned out to be flat wrong. No exceptions.

        Just like the little shepard boy who lied and lied about the Wolf, the alarmist cult has lied about every scary prediction. So no one believes their scare stories any more. They’re simply not credible.

        But thanx for playing, CC. It was fun for a while. Now, trot on back to Hotwhopper or wherever you get your talking points from. They’re old and busted. You need new ones.

      • andyg55

        You might not have done this experiment – it’s one you can do at your home.
        Grab an container of ice and stick a thermometer in it so the bulb is somewhere near the surface.
        Heat the container, being careful not to focus the heat energy on the thermometer – you want to measure the surface temperature of the ice as it melts – and melt it will.

        Notice, that as the ice melts, the temperature you see on the surface remains at zero….until all the ice is melted.

        This is a high school experiment and demonstrates the latent heat of melting – the graph you showed is perfectly consistent with the information in any chemistry textbook.

        Yes, the surface temperature will be unchanged. The ice mass is not, in fact the surface area is decreasing rapidly in the last even half a decade.

        (Velicogna, Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed b y GRACE, Geophysical Research Letters, October 2009)

      • Poor caitie,

        Totally unable to digest the information in front of it.

        An astonishingly bad grasp of reality.

        Did you know that during the first 3/4 of the Holocene, ZERO summer arctic sea ice was the norm ?

        Or were you IGNORANT of that as well.? ….. need I ask !!!

      • And sorry, little goule..

        as RACooks Piomas graph clearly shows.. Arctic sea ice mass has also been Increasing since the AMO peaked.

        You don’t know much about the AMO , do you, little inebriate.

      • Hi andy,
        No I focus on these kinds of experiments because they are specifically designed to be simple and easily reproducible.

        You didn’t know about latent heat of melting – now you do. You can, and should fold that information into how you parse the data you’re given – specifically in this case, you can understand why ice melts while being the same temperature.

        At the risk of giving you too much information: the temperature is the mean kinetic energy of an ensemble. When melting ice, the energy is partitioned into breaking the hydrogen bonds which give the ice crystal its form, it does not go into kinetic energy. This is really just because the bonds are more likely to absorb energy than is a free water molecule.
        When the bonds are all broken, then the energy preferentially goes into kinetic excitation of the water.

        This is why the temperature doesn’t change much in a state change – the same is true of the latent heat of evaporation, incidentally, but in this case the bonds are formed in a different way (obviously, water is not a lattice, but ice is.)

      • Why do you think everyone is as ignorant as you are?

        Just out of junior high is my guess.

        These know-it-all teen wannabes.. so hilarious.

      • thanks again andy for your ongoing commitment to demonstrating the necessity of insulting people who show you new data and concepts that violate those which, for no demonstrably useful or sane reason, have held dear for so long.

        Andy, the plot you show has error bars on it – they indicate actually the degree of scatter – you should pay attention to them because they have a meaning. That you are attempting to ignore them actually negates your point entirely.

        Again, the latent heat of melting is indeed something from high school, I am perplexed you, and apparently others, overlooked it.

        I have to say, I enjoy reading your attempts to bully me. What matters to me is your adherence to obfuscation and misinformation, fortunately I have fact, reason and sanity on my side. Disparagementa from your collective is par for the course, and to be honest, so irrelevant it’s easy to dismiss as symptomatic of someone who has, for reasons mysterious to me, let themselves become angry at facts that refute their mindset.

        It’s not interesting to stick to a mindset that is easily shown to be incorrect or invalid. It’s even less interesting to hurl streams of abuse while the boat sinks.

      • Your funny little rants trying to show you know something about the physics of H2O are quite “I’ve just learnt this” to watch.

        Please keep going….. I need the laugh :-).

      • I dont think everyone is ignorant at all. some are. I try to help that by describing things like latent heat of melting etc.
        I did that, and now people are less ignorant. Mission accomplished.
        Do you have any more comments relevant to your misinterpretation and misappropriation of data? or this pretty much all you have left?

      • caitiecaitie

        I dont think everyone is ignorant at all. some are. I try to help that by describing things like latent heat of melting etc.

        And quite a few of us have been calculating things using the actual thermodynamic properties of air, ice, water, saturated steam, and superheated steam since 1972. Some earlier than that, some a bit less than that. We know about the latent heat, about the changes in these properties with pressure, relative humidities and with different percentages of water vapor and with the changes in enthalpy and chemical reactions as well. We are very comfortable with the changes in solar energy over time, with the changes in light energy being absorbed and reflected, and with the many changes in albedoes over time, over elevations of the sun, as over changes in cloud cover and humidity as well. It is not clear exactly what you thought you needed to correct there either, since there is no dispute about what you think you are discussing at that point. (It is, however, irrelevant to the larger issue of potential benefits from increased CO2, from burning fossil fuels to improve lives, and from a potentially warmer earth at all latitudes.)

        So far, you have been remarkably wrong about something in almost every paragraph you’ve written, but I am 97% sure (that is what 75 out of 13,500 scientists surveyed find at least), that sooner or later, you will eventually get something right. Please continue.

      • I just learned it?
        as I said, I learned it in high school.

        While you’re on the topic, why didn’t you learn it in high school? or even at any other time? It’s certainly not complex – actually I honestly dont understand why people seem so uninformed on some pretty fundamental thermodynamics on this bulletin – you’re certainly not the first person who failed to recognise the effect – so : why did you?

      • “let themselves become angry at facts that refute their mindset.”

        Poor caitie.. the only anger and desperation shown here is from you..

        You just have too many mirrors to see it. ;-)

      • So you admit you just learnt it..

        As you say.. It’s certainly not complex

        Go back and try to get a better understanding next time.

        Because yours is rudimentary at best.

      • “It’s even less interesting to hurl streams of abuse while the boat sinks.”

        No, but it seems to be all you are capable of. :-)

      • “I did that, and now people are less ignorant”

        You really do have an unsupportable opinion of your own intelligence , don’t you, little goule. :-)

        Most people here have sooo much more knowledge that you will ever have…..

        ….. you are just way too thick to realise it. :-)

      • Thanks andy for that article.
        Did you read it?

        This part of it might be interesting to you:
        “But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses”

        The FACT here andy, is that ice in antarctica is melting. And fast. The finding you just linked me to CONFIRMS that – it also says east Antarctica is not losing ice, but gaining it. It ALSO says that the scientists expect the losses to surpass the gains.

        Now, andy: you have two choices here, you tell me.
        Is the paper right, or wrong?

        Is it justified in predicting the measured melting will surpass the gains?
        or is the only part of that paper the one you’ve cherry picked out of it, and you’ve ignored not only the rest of the paper, but the comments of the scientist that wrote it?

        What you’ve done here andy, is to say “scientists are right except when I disagree with them” – and that really won’t cut it with anyone who has more than a rudimentary concept of intellectual honesty.

      • “Most people here have sooo much more knowledge”
        Im sure some do.

        that I’ve had to describe a basic principle to you would not put you into that group. That you fail to actually read and understand the very document you point me to would eject you further.

        Dispense with the anger andy, it doesn’t do you any favours. Spend your time absorbing, processing and parsing information if you want to talk about it, thrashing around and accidentally linking to published articles that contain science that makes MY point, and not yours , also does you no favours – yes andy, that article concludes the antarctic ice is likely to slowly ebb away – thats not what you wanted it to say, is it.. ?

      • “yes andy, that article concludes the Antarctic ice is likely to slowly ebb away ”

        roflmao..

        Poor Zwally, guy was stuck between science and religion.

        He is a warmista, but as a scientist had to report his REAL findings

        He then had to add those lines to get remain in the good books.. based on zero scientific evidence..

        You truly are a naïve little ditz, aren’t you. :-)

      • Anger.? . I’m roflmao.. you are so hilariously ignorant.

        You on the other hand possess a ranting style comparable to an apostle separate to get paid in some form or other..

      • :The FACT here andy, is that ice in antarctica is melting:”

        Roflmao.. you really do get sucked in, don’t you.

        NO, that is not a FACT.. it is a model supposition that Zwally had to add to crawl to his masters.

        There is NO EVIDENCE that the Antarctic as a whole is melting.. NONE whatsoever.

      • “The FACT here andy, is that ice in antarctica is melting”
        “There is NO EVIDENCE that the Antarctic as a whole is melting”

        I didn’t say “as a whole” – please read more carefully, and calm down: the spittle you leave on the page is obscuring important words.

        But okay, you confirmed selection bias, and exactly what I said you did – the scientist is right only when he agrees with you – when he is wrong, it’s a conspiracy.

        Gotcha, it’s a conspiracy after all.
        Time to move on andy, youre out of your depth if you have to appeal to a conspiracy fallacy.

      • Thanks RAcooke.
        I’m sure many, many people have been calculating longer than me, and also longer than you. The length of time one spends calculating however, does not correlate with the accuracy of their conclusion.

        Since your post is pretty rambling, I’ll get straight to the point for you:
        RA, You showed a graph, and a lovely graph it is too. Then you said something about the graph which is simply wrong – I was doubly confused because the people who created the graph EVEN put a deviation polygon on it – which you completely ignored, and then you went and showed another graph that didn’t have that added grey area – apparently that inspired you to make comments about it that were completely at odds with basic statistics.

        Let me be clear RAcooke – you are attempting to make a conclusion about a departure for a VERY CLEAR trend. Now that departure sits comfortably within the standard deviation – basic statistics dictates that any conclusion you make from that metric is NOT with a sufficiently high probability. put another way it is NOT statistically significant.

        RAcooke, I dont care if you’ve spent centuries clicking away at an abacus, concluding there are teapots around saturn, your claims to a mathematical history are TOTALLY irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that you are making a statistically INVALID claim.

        That has nothing to do with me, nor you, the price of eggs nor how long you spend waffling about hot steam. your statement is NOT supported by the data, period.

        So far, cooke, you have been wrong in this bulletin board in 100% of what you’ve said – your statement was statistically unsustainable. It has nothing to do with how much you read about percentages of water vapour. Sorry.

      • “I’m frankly astonished at the bad grasps of statistics that people seem to show here”

        Frankly I’m astounded at the absolute inability of little caitie to grasp anything about the AMO, PDO, the zero increase in Antarctic temperatures, the cooling trend in the Arctic, the gradual increase in Arctic sea ice as the AMO starts to dip. The zero trend in atmospheric temperatures.

        REAL DATA means NOTHING to it.

      • “Now, andy: you have two choices here, you tell me.
        Is the paper right, or wrong?”

        The facts are possible correct, Antarctic is gaining mass.

        The unsubstantiated modelling supposition added at the end is just what it is…. meaningless.

      • andy, I posted this earlier, clearly it didn’t stick. let me break it down for you.

        ““If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years ”

        now, andy – pay attention to that word “losses” – then “losses of the Antarctic Peninsula”

        Speculate with me andy,
        How might an ice sheet experience “losses”?
        second.
        When committed to answering this question – and you do have to think about it – which part of antarctica is experiencing losses?

        How are the losses being incurred?
        and
        what is the conclusion by the researchers, of the the “losses” in 20-30 years?

        One more time andy, this is the important one – so I’m going to write it twice.
        How does ice experience losses?

        I await your answers – yes, you can google, although I understand you abhor learning, it might be to your benefit if you momentarily dispensed with that attitude, it’s affecting your ability to present a coherent and informed argument. At least, I hope that’s what is affecting it. XD

      • roflmao..

        Again your lack of any sort of knowledge hinders your comprehension.

        You aren’t seriously trying to use the West Antarctic peninsular game, are you?

        even you are not THAT stupid… or are you.

        How is one small part of the West Antarctic peninsular, that just happens to be above a major volcanic region, anything to do with global anything !!! (another question you will avoid answering)

        And did you see that first word … IF….

        its an unproven supposition.. even they admit it by their very own wording. !!

      • I notice how you also totally ignore all reference to the AMO.. well done.

        squirmy, that is for certain. !!!

      • Wow, it appears that the only intellectual skills you have mastered is changing the subject and false analogies.
        Nobody ever claimed that climate scientists have more money than do the oil sheiks of the middle east. (At least try to get your stereo types right. It makes you look even more clueless when you get something that simple wrong.)
        The claim is that climate scientists rely on govt grants for their living, and if the scare dies, so does their income. The amount of money other people make is not relevant to that issue.

        Anyone who tries to claim that skeptics are paid by the oil interest has completely lost what little credibility she once had.

      • Hello! Just an economic model for consideration… It’s not absolute amount of compensation matters but ratio of compensation per effort spent. Providing we agree on how to measure effort, I would suggest that academia professors (that in current system constitute majority of the scientists) spend almost next to zero effort. Thus, their compensation, that includes 60K-200K salary, three month+ vacation, easy and flexible schedule, no stress etc., divided by almost zero effort tends to infinity. Such high “efficiency” is unheard of in the rest of professional world and that’s why profession of academic faculty/scientist is so attractive. I actually would add to that scientific staff of gov labs. Due to this attractiveness and because the hiring/ promotion and research funding systems are completely vulnerable to corruption, academia in its majority is now represented by the crooked scientists.

        A friendly advise: you shouldn’t maintain discussions with angry people who exhibit lumpenproletariat manners and attitude and who are seemingly self-educated :)

  4. Lets see if I’ve got this right – if this prediction is correct, inhospitable bitterly cold polar regions will warm significantly, while equatorial regions will be almost unaffected. Lets stop this change immediately, its an emergency…

    • I wonder if those wealthy folks with seaside mansions in florida would share your apathy, Eric?
      Maybe you’re unclear what happens when ice melts. Maybe you’re of the impression it’s simple to stop the momentum of heat transfer. Maybe you think we can just install a few freezers in the poles, freeze up a few blocks of ice and the problem will go away.
      I dont know Eric, is that the limit of your understanding of thermodynamics, and the limit of your ability to consider a little more deeply, the consequence of some effect?
      Enjoy your iced-tea in your equatorial abode. Hopefully it won’t overflow when the ice melts.

      • Really? “Enjoy your iced-tea in your equatorial abode. Hopefully it won’t overflow when the ice melts.”

        …and you ask if Mr Worrall knows what happens when ice melts.

        Must do better!

      • Phils’ dad.

        you understand that ice is less dense than water right?
        i.e. a container more than 90% full of ice will spill?

        Just asking – because it was the point I was making. Actually you’re correct in that the density of ice is not relevant in the context of ocean level rise – except in that it makes he ice float and is therefore directly exposed to surface temperatures – but the density of ice in itself is not really relevant exempt in that context, to the fact that ocean level rising will inundate the coasts.
        Feel free to object to the fact that melting icecaps will cause ocean levels to rise – I’ll have a better understanding of the calibre of the knowledge behind your posts.

      • caitiecaitie January 20, 2016 at 7:29 pm said:
        “you understand that ice is less dense than water right?
        i.e. a container more than 90% full of ice will spill?”

        No, caitiecaitie.
        A glass 90% full of ice will be @ 83% full when it melts.

        Simple common sense should have told you:
        when a full container of water freezes, it bursts. therefore ice occupies a greater volume than water
        ice floats on water. therefore its density is lower.

        If you don’t know what density means… nah- too easy…

      • ” is that the limit of your understanding of thermodynamics”

        Seriously, you think that the increase in co2 which is only 4 tenths of 1% retains enough heat in the upper atmosphere causes global warming? The IPCC math is wrong on this and it is very simple to prove it’s wrong. The amount of co2 has increased dramatically over the last 18 years, the temperatures in spite of being “the warmest on record” are below the lowest projected model. In fact, it is my position that if the IPCC is correct, that actual temperatures are falling. Compounding that problem is the adjustments they’ve made to the temperature record. Without those adjustments they couldn’t even claim ” warmest year on record”.

      • @gnomish oh you’re 100% right, thanks for the correction XD oops!
        of course, the point at hand is that ice locked up in the caps and elsewhere, won’t be locked up there if they melt. As I said above, the actual density is irrelevant – even if it was backwards XD

      • “Seriously, you think that the increase in co2 which is only 4 tenths of 1% retains enough heat in the upper atmosphere causes global warming”

        no, I dont. That’s not the important process at all, so I can understand you find it absurd – it is.

        CO2 has a relatively tiny thermal capacity, retaining heat is not how it contributes to global warming: reflecting infrared energy as heat, back downward is it’s role.

      • Caitie, “you understand that ice is less dense than water right?
        i.e. a container more than 90% full of ice will spill?”

        You seem to be saying that a container full of ice will over flow when it melts. . .

        Why don’t you try it? It won’t spill a drop. I am really excited for you, there is an exciting future of learning ahead of you if you are willing to test your theories.

      • “I wonder if those wealthy folks with seaside mansions in florida would share your apathy, Eric?”

        Maybe they shouldn’t have built where the ocean had already been during this interglacial, you know, when sea levels were quite a bit higher than they are now?

        If they can’t outrun 2mm per year then they deserve their fate.

      • caitiecaitie,

        Quit while you’re still ahead, that is to say before you get noticed and are soon embarrassed by folks here who have more than an intellectual toe in the AGW water. Oops. Too late. Enjoy your bath.

      • Heh you keep on being you Katie. Hate to break your heart my condo at Myrtle Beach missed the “polar Armageddon apocalypse meltdown” since you know the polar caps grew the last several years.

        I understand the religion aspect of your hypothesis does not work unless it requires that man fell from grace and only through sacrifice can he regain his place in utopia.

        Unfortunately(or in my view fortunately) I already have a religion.

      • thanks sven, yes I often am mystified at the evidential basis for religions. It seems there is none that can be intelligently verified via science. Though that you complain the veracity of some science because, in your experience, there is no credible evidence and then announce you dont actually NEED evidence is a little contradictory, but hardly the point of the bulletin.
        A few moments looking through the literature demonstrates there is no data supporting your assertion that the area coverage of the poles is increasing in the last 7 years.
        e.g. nsidc:

      • Catty…If all the Arctic sea ice melted, the oceans would rise .ZERO mm..there is no land at the North Pole !!

      • caitiecaitie January 20, 2016 at 8:06 pm
        CO2 has a relatively tiny thermal capacity, retaining heat is not how it contributes to global warming: reflecting infrared energy as heat, back downward is it’s role.

        Reflecting heat? I presume you misspoke?

      • Poor little caitie-ditz (is it blonde, one has to wonder)…

        shows its moronic ignorance of the AMO and then does the ultimate anti-science cherry-pick of looking at the Arctic sea ice only over the upward leg of the AMO oscillation.

        The IGNORANCE is strong with this one. !!!

      • “Poor little caitie-ditz (is it blonde, one has to wonder)…”
        ah, now the reason for your vitriol is apparent.

        I’m sure she’ll come back to you andy. ..actually, given the calibre and quality of your posts here, I dont blame her for leaving. Its not her andy, its you.

        Time heals all wounds andy.

      • yet another empty rant from caitie.. YAWN.. it is starting to get boring. !!

        Unfortunately, time will not heal your ignorance.

        Only an education will. To late for that, it seems.

      • brians356, CC’s ahead? Not that I’ve ever noticed.
        Her hole is hundreds of feet deep, yet she insists on digging even harder.

      • CC–would like to point out that you have taken a report with lot’s of maybe’s, if’s, and might’s and translated into absolute facts. Same as your little experiment of heating ice in a beaker from below has little to do with a complex system such as the Arctic ocean is, what with also sorts of changing currents wind patterns etc.
        Just saying.

      • cc,

        DMI has more credibility, doubled and squared, than NSIDC. Here’s the January 2016 DMI chart:


        [The black line is the long term average]

        But of course, NSIDC propaganda scare charts feed your confirmation bias:

        That’s their purpose, see? They lead people by the nose when those folks don”t think for themselves.

        The fact is that global ice cover is well wihin its long term normal range:

        And Arctic ice has been recovering since its relatively small DIP of a few years ago:

        I’d say, “Think for yourself,” but it’s clear you’ve drunk too much Kool-Aid.

    • the strangest thing is that the new PM of Canada, a country that has an average temperature of 1C, wants to spend billions of dollars to stop Global Warming.

      Why not spend those billions of dollars helping the halpless Newfies that have been thrown out of work in Alberta’s Oil Patch?

      Every day more and more laid off workers are driving to the airport, buying a ticket back home, and calling the car loan company to come and pick up their vehicle. It is sitting in the airport parking lot, keys in the ignition.

      Want a new pickup, loaded with all the options? Sit at the airport parking lot in Calgary or Edmonton. It is pulling up right now, as you wait.

    • Earth’s temperature has increased by 1°C over the past century, and most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

      …and they don’t even realize that’s impossible

    • Hi david,
      CO2 absorbes infrared from the earth surface – that is, radiation that is directed outward.
      it then re-emits that, in a random direction but since the CO2 layer is actually pretty thick, the probability of it being re emitted back downward is significant. The net result : heat energy in the form of IR cannot easily penetrate a layer of CO2, it simply has a lower probability of getting through, than being re-emitted back where it came from. The more CO2, the higher the “optical depth” of the atmosphere, and the lower the probability the photons will penetrate – since CO2 doesn’t hold onto energy for long, it’s more likely to be re-emitted downwards, as a net process.

      so yes, this is roughly equivalent to “reflected”.

      • You really don’t have much clue , do you.

        Ok let’s try to educate you (as if)

        Q1, what is the re-emission time of the CO2 molecule?

        Q2, What is the mean time between molecular collisions in the lower atmosphere.?

        Q3, At what height does CO2 actually start to re-emit?

        Research time…… Off you go, little goule. ;-)

      • Thanks andy, I admire your persistence in wanting to come across as angry and offensive, despite what I said earlier.
        I’m sure you can find all this information in some journal somewhere, I dont keep these values in my head. Sorry, and nor does it matter if I do or not. To be honest, it doesn’t actually matter significantly. I’m sure I could google it as you say – you seem to be of the opinion that finding out information like that is distasteful. is that right? what could be distasteful about finding information as necessary, when it’s not committed to memory? Surely you’re not simply leveraging another irrelevant matter to come across as yet even angrier?

        But anyhow, are you saying that the description I mentioned above, is incorrect? If so, please identify where it is wrong. I’m perfectly happy for you to use a mathematical description if you like – in fact I probably prefer it.

        But while you’re talking about it, can you explain why the mean collision time matters? Clearly the atmosphere is dense enough to be generally be in thermal equilibrium for a given altitude, no doubt with localised variations – the energy distribution then would be quite homogenous – appropriately partitioned by mass within the atmospheric constituents. I’m pretty sure the relaxation conditions for CO2 are not related to altitude at all, its just not a factor in the probability, but of course there would be an effective altitude which could probably be regarded as an effective height.

      • So……

        ZERO ability to answer some simple questions. But we knew that. ;-)

        wiggle and squirm…,….

        Your lack of any understanding has been highlighted for all to see.. :-)

        Keep posting, you are doing an admirable job of humiliating all alarmista trolls. :-)

      • ” I’m pretty sure the relaxation conditions for CO2 are not related to altitude at all”

        ie.. you have NO IDEA !!… correct !!! ;-)

      • hi again andy.

        My information on the probability of spontaneous of an atom is that it’s contingent on parameters such as einstein coefficient – or conversely, the einstein coefficint itself is related to the lifetime of decay – since there is no real way to calculate that. Note that a CO2 atom cannot absorb nor emit energy across a spectrum of wavelengths, it is also quantised, but is dictated by the difference between the excitation energy levels. Having said that, the turbulence in an atmosphere will smear out the wavelength as the CO2 sees it, relative to the frame the radiation was emitted.

        Now – try as I might, I can’t locate a parameter in the decay probability that is contingent on anything related to altitude – things like ambient flux, pressure, temperature, etc. these all vary strongly with altitude, but they have absolutely ZERO impact on the decay probability.

        What I suspect you are ACTUALLY trying to ask is: at what height does the rate of repopulation of the excited state exceed that of the de-excitation – and that certainly has to do with things like density and temperature, but that is not what you asked – which was “what height does CO2 re-emit” – the answer is: CO2 re-emits with the same probability (assuming you’re talking about the same change in quantum states), irrespective of its temperature, height, altitude, pressure or colour of its panties. They just dont enter into the probability. CO2 re-emits at ANY height, what varies is the rates of repopulation of the upper states.

        Sorry – touching on quantum mechanics there, do you mind?

      • Cait….if you already have…..I’ll find it below…..however, if not….please, be a dove, and describe in detail this CO2 “layer which” (according to you) “is actually pretty thick”.
        Details please……where is this layer? How does it form? Who found it?

      • Reflected and absorbed and re-emitted are two entirely different mechanisms. The fact that you can get confused over such a simple fact is just evidence of how little training you have had. Perhaps if you went back to the seminar for a refresher course, you might manage to not make a fool of yourself next time.
        PS, CO2 is capable of absorbing photons coming from all directions, not just from the earth.

      • Catie, do you really believe that anyone will consider your explanations on CO2 and IR credible after you have demonstrated that you were unaware of something as as fundamental as Archimedes Principle? You know, the bit about the melting ice overflowing the pitcher of tea?

      • Hi andy
        I find it interesting your posts consist mostly of disparagement, nothing in the way of intelligent or informed rebuttal.. and then a link to a document completely without a single citation, mathematical rigour, or even a correlation to common sense. Andy, I’ve seen LOTS of documents like the one you linked me to. We call them crackpots.
        I’m very happy to read a peer reviewed paper though – when you manage to produce one.

        Andy – Are you going to graduate past the “nyah youre wrong cos i said so” phase?
        seriously andy, you linked me to what amounts to a blog rant? The only published G. novak I could find was an animal scientist – tell me you have something better. please?.

      • gael,
        Sorry yes, i admit the model is simplified – of course the layer i refer to is simply the atmospheric layer – i think the context you are referring to is that of venus’s atmosphere. It’s hardly pure CO, but for the purposes of describing the salient relevant detail, its appropriate to refer only to CO (or indeed, water, or other greenhouse gasses). in this case the optical depth is the relevant parameter which is entirely frequency dependent, so in some cases it’s appropriate to refer simply to say, CO, because its opacity is not linked to that of other gas.

      • Hi mark, indeed they are. I’m sorry I was brief about it – but I went into some detail about the process I was describing above. I was unaware people in this list apparently have a lot of momentum when they find something they dont like, and that bitterness carries on well past even ongoing and repeated descriptions of the intended point.
        It’s not uncommon to find in local parlance, the absorption and re-emission of IR being referred to as “reflection” – its simpler, more accessible, and usually has no greater ramification to the point.
        Again, if you want to examine my more proper description, you can find it elsewhere and if you still think its foolish, by all means, detail your concerns in a more intelligible and less petulant style. but no mark, i clearly dont find it confusing.

        Yes indeed CO2 is capable of absorbing IR from all directions, but the context is a description of how CO2 traps heat energy emanating from the earth, therefore heat energy emanating from elsewhere is irrelevant.

      • hi rayh.
        The explanations of IR are not mine. They’re a process of nature, I have nothing to do with it.
        There is nothing stopping you from informing yourself on the matter. I’m mystified why you haven’t already – if you had, you wouldn’t have made a post like that.

      • caitiecaitie;
        It’s not uncommon to find in local parlance, the absorption and re-emission of IR being referred to as “reflection” – its simpler, more accessible, and usually has no greater ramification to the point.

        The only place you’ll see “reflection” used is in a gross oversimplification of the process for rank beginners. The process of absorption and re-emission is no an analogue to reflection, and ignores that the preponderance of energy re-distribution as a consequence of absorption is via collision with other molecules in the atmosphere, the majority of which are not CO2. This has consequences for the MRL and surface temperatures arrived at by simple application of lapse rate, and, due to the overlap with water vapour (concentration of which varies from dominant to inconsequential based on attitude, latitude and geographic factors) has consequences for the temperature profile from surface to TOA, and hence a more nuanced treatment of lapse rate is required.

        Calling all of this roughly equivalent to “reflected” simply doesn’t cut it. Nor is this a matter of knowing “where to look stuff up” as if it were some constant in an equation. People poked at you on this matter to determine if your knowledge was cursory or in depth. You’ve provided the answer.

        I suggest you put away your sharp tongue and arrogant attitude. When someone asks a question, share your understanding of it, and you will most likely get usable knowledge back. Well, in this forum you’ll get a range of knowledge, but you will swiftly figure out who knows what, and that you can benefit from quite a bit of it.

      • hello david
        “The only place you’ll see “reflection” used is in a gross oversimplification of the process for rank beginners”

        yes, this is exactly the reason I used it here. After discovering people had to ask about common statistical techniques, it was clear to me there are at least some people who could be described as a rank beginner.

        As I said, I detailed the process elsewhere, Im unclear what you hope to gain by pursuing the issue.

      • Poor caitie.. this has all got way beyond your capability, hasn’t it.

        You have still to produce one tiny bit of anything to back up any of your incoherent rantings.

        Three question, dearie.

        Answer them…

        or NOT.

  5. The greatest warming in around Svalbard (Spitzbergen).
    There the raw temperature data indeed shows nearly 4C of warming.
    But there was a similar or greater amount of warming in the period 1910-1940.

    It gets worse. The late twentieth century warming was from a thermometer right next to a runway. Some of that warming could have been from increasing aircraft movements and improved snow clearing methods.

    • “similar” being half.
      You’d get a more honest picture if you normalised the plot to the period 1930-1960
      Now if we could get that plot to extend backward another century or two…

      yes okay, you’re saying all those data that say pretty much the same thing, were taken from thermometers which were all adjacent to a runway, in all cases. You are right?

      Or are you pointing out that despite one thermometer being next to a runway, it still showed the same trends as those that were not?
      Oh right, the latter then? great. so that it was next to a runway has not caused it to be significantly different from the others.

      your findings: thermometers next to runways show data consistent with those that are not.
      You did science!, congrats.

      • What I try to show is something broader. If the human impact of global warming was significant then in a place where recent warming has been perhaps greatest in the world the warming since the 1970s should be massively greater than the early C20th where (from the models) the human impact was many times smaller. It ain’t. The data suggests that the human impact is somewhere between tiny and zero.

  6. … the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused was programmed to cause the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.

    Globally, the researchers saw simulated an average temperature increase of 1.7 … .

    Lol, they sure won’t fool all those under-30-something’s whose main hobby is playing video games………

    Geography Prof: Hey, Game Boy, come over here and look at my neat app; you can SEE how human CO2 CAUSES the temperature of the earth to rise — here, just pick any town… and —

    Gamer (mildly annoyed at having to pause his game): Dude. Like, I SAW you writing the code for that last night. The only extent it has ANYTHING to do with the real world is the extent to which your assumptions WHICH YOU CODED IN are complete and accurate. Have you solved all the physics and math and chemical equations necessary to KNOW how CO2 affects earth’s climate? And what if the net CO2 in the atmosphere is natural? Natural CO2 outweighs human by two orders of magnitude.

    GP(………….long silence): So? I know this planet like the back of my hand. Name any country and I will tell you its longest river and highest mountain. AND — it agrees with the I-P-C-C.

    Gamer (hard stare and loud exhale): So — what? All the IPCC’s models are unfit for purpose, in other words: JUNK.

    GP: How do you know so much about climate and stuff?

    Gamer (back to playing game): Watts Up with That.

    GP: Oooh, I dunno, just hadn’t heard a lot of the stuff you were saying before and …. so??

    Gamer (not looking up from game): SO??!!!!

    GP: So? How — do — you — know —

    Gamer: For the last time, WATTS — UP — WITH — THAT!!!

    GP (gathering up his laptop, copy of Rand & McNally’s atlas, and colored pencils): Okay. Be that way. I’m going to go write a little article for NATURE and get PAID and then people will know the truth about old Damon Matthews! (muttering as he flounces down the front drive) …………..
    …………………………………………………..
    justbecauseyouworkatmicrosoftdoesn’tmeanyou’resmarterthanmeatcode …………andI’llbetyoudon’tknowhowmanymileslongthenileriveris…..

    • Gamer (from above vignette): Here you go, Watts Uppers! A little allegory depicting the ENDLESS LOOP that is the AGW argument stream. Looks like they’ve started over again with this article… same scenery….. same words….. over and over and….

      — and I chose this game because it is to video games what AGW Fantasy Science is to real science.

      Endless loop (youtube)

    • Actually janet, in a way any physics first year will tell you: one makes an observation and attempts to describe it, considering physics , math and data.
      The simulation did exactly that – considering as many parameters as valid the climate is modelled. If the model is consistent with the reality, the the model is plausible.

      That means that the input parameters are plausible too. You might not know janet, but modelling processes using measured data is one of the best ways we have to do science. It’s used in simple chemistry, geology, physics, etc. etc. etc.

      I’m a little bewildered you dont know how the scientific method works, and that it does, actually work. If you think the scientific method is completely bogus, that’s super, but it means you regard pretty much every aspect of your existence as bogus. Even the air you breathe in the comfort of your designed house , is heated/warmed/cooled by ‘bogus’ science.

      I’d been keen for one of you guys to stand up and just out with it – “science is crap”. There’s nothing different to the way climate science proceeds, to any other science, but you seem to focus diligently on this one aspect as if you’re saying “science is fine – except when I choose not to agree with it”.

      Sounds pretty wimpy to me. Come on Janet, out with it: you think the scientific method sucks right?
      (feel free to respond using your abacus – although that like your computer, was built using science)

      • To: Any reader of this thread who has been confused by cc’s non-sequiturs, half-truths, and just-plain-garbage, here is a nice summary of the science by Walthaas below on this thread (6:45pm):

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/20/gosh-a-new-model-based-study-puts-temperature-increases-caused-by-co2-emissions-on-the-map/comment-page-1/#comment-2124875

        Hm. There was another troll recently (about 2 weeks ago, I think) who kept calling me “Janet”… not nearly as “crazy,” though… same troll, but high this time?

      • You say; “If the model is consistent with the reality, the the model is plausible.”

        Which model of the 12 used was consistent with reality?

      • Thanks janice, admittedly I didn’t pay much attention to the spelling of your name. I should refer to you as simply ‘j’.

        You’re welcome to identify and highlight a half-truth in what I write. If it’s valid, I’ll correct what I say – again, this is the scientific method.

        I’ve read the post below, and it seems to object that the work being done follows the scientific method. Yes. CO2 causes heating. It’s what it does. It makes sense to include that in the model. Walthaas is right that its included, but wrong that including it is a mistake.
        There is certainly plenty of evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The standard example is Venus of course – with surface temperatures vastly in excess of that expected even taking into account it’s slightly nearer proximity to the sun.
        Walthaas is flat out wrong, on pretty much any example he’s raised. There is nothing he’s said that is defensible nor consistent with observation.
        This perl stood out for me:
        “A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection”

        Walthaas either deliberately or negligently possibly other adverbs, obfuscates the simile – the gasses act in the same way as the glass: i.e. the greehouse gasses reduce cooling.
        Walthaas seems to think heat escapes our atmosphere by convection – which bizarrely enough, would require atmosphere above the atmosphere – which makes no sense at all. The cooling is truncated not by limiting convection, but radiation. The heat energy emitted from the earth is transformed down in wavelength from the visible wavelengths – where our atmosphere is transparent – into the infrared, where our atmosphere is opaque.

        Of course, that is pretty obvious to anyone who spends a few moments thinking about the analogy. Walthaas is obviously yet to do that, and is yet to update his ability to distinguish between convective and radiative cooling.

        Is it really such a confusing simile for you j? I thought it was quite apt, but then again, I understand the difference between radiative and convective cooling.

        I suppose Walthaas and you think spacemen can’t exist in space because it’s too hot? oh dear.

      • If and when the North American economy collapses, there will be plenty of professors out of work.

        No money for students to attend universities so no need for professors except in vital areas and climate change is not one of them.

        Tech colleges will have better chance of surviving.

      • Barb
        “there will be plenty of professors out of work”
        yes probably, it’s hardly a lucrative industry – despite what people seem to think here. Im sure this site generates significant revenue from it’s commercial value though – and probably a lot more than your average science grant.

        I’d hope that the professors that find themselves out of a job would simply return to the country they came from (most are not native-born USAians), and hopefully continue research. That seems to be likely – the rising economies such as china, india etc. have a significantly research-capable population.

      • Actually CC, your first conclusion is invalid. While it may be true if you only use 1 model, it fails when we consider the reality of multiple. If you actually look at the parameters used in different models you will find that they are of wildly different values, the cooling effect of aerosols being a great example.

        Two models using very different parameters but giving the same results shows a very real problem with the model’s internal machinations. By your own argument you are saying that both 2W/m-2 and 6W/m-2 cooling from aerosols are acceptable inputs for a hindcast of a model. As only one of the values can possibly represent the real world values this argument is obviously wrong.

        Similarly 20+ models, all using different values that produce similar answers points to the models being tuned to give that answer. It is simply impossible otherwise for 20+ models, all using different parameters AND different internal calculations to arrive at the same conclusion.

        Imagine a set of simple ballistics models. They all give an answer, a ballistics curve for a cannonball that roughly agree with each other. However they use parameters where gravitational acceleration varies from 4.5 M/S-2 to 9 M/S-2, air viscosity, initial speed, friction all vary as well. On what grounds do you declare the models represent “reality”?

        I know you’ll be tempted to say that I’m trying to trick you because acceleration is really 9.8 M/S-2, but the truth is that you are only feeding in estimated values into the model and you have no way of knowing what the “real” value is. Therein lies the problem, feeding “best guess” values into a mathematical model and declaring the results to be “robust” because they agree with our preconceived ideas is simply not science.

        It is nice that you bring up Physics, Chemistry and others and perhaps you could learn from them. In Physics and Chemistry, you know the real sciences, when the reality doesn’t match the model, they change the model but in Climate Science they often simply change (sorry, sorry, “adjust”) the data to match the model. Which is pretty much the opposite of how science woks. ;)

      • Thanks john,
        If I want to understand the cumulative effect of some complex process, then one way to do that is to break the processes into sub-processes – each of which have a related parameter space, but otherwise work semi-independently. This is known as compartmentalisation theory, it’s used a lot in, for example, medicine, physics, etc.

        To understand the reaction of a body to some infection say, in a kidney, I’d need to consider how the organs respond separately to the inputs and outputs. They will be different and the models describing the compartments will be different, with different initial and operating parameters.
        It would be absurd to model the function of an infected kidney with the same input parameters as an otherwise healthy liver, they simply function differently, and the outputs/inputs are contingent on the initial conditions and the contributions to the holistic state as it evolves.
        That is what this work does – it compartmentalises the planet, and applies models.

      • ” The standard example is Venus of course – with surface temperatures vastly in excess of that expected even taking into account it’s slightly nearer proximity to the sun.”

        Slightly nearer?? Wow.

      • jeff
        Venus distance to sun: 108.2 million km
        Earth distance to sun: 149.6 million km

        That is to say, it is 40 million km closer. You would therefore expect it to receive less than twice as much radiation, about 1.8 times the amount, assuming the sizes are approximately the same. To be more clear, it is exposed to a little less than twice the energy flux out planet is.
        It snows metal on venus, it snows water on earth.

      • Science is not crap Katie, you form a hypothesis, come up with an experiment with verifiable potential results, test said hypothesis, publish your results and methodology, war critical cross-x cross t, and confirmation.

        The AGW Kult engages in NONE of that.

        You notice they earnest hysteria missing from the list?

        You notice the missing attempts to use politicians to undermine the economic process missing?

        Good.

        If AGW is not a kult I’d like a detailed list of “corrections” to legacy data and the justifications and methodology used to SWAG it.

        Thanks.

      • Thanks sven,

        As you say, the SM involves testing a model (i.e. hypothesis.), then attempting to falsify it.
        To continue to attempt to falsify a model, you have to explore its predictions – making predictions is a key part of the SM.

        To make a model, you need the input data. To test it, you have to publish the predictions.
        I’m not sure which part of that you think is lacking, but a quick summary of a handful of articles I can find seem perfectly consistent with the SM, as is the article that is the subject of this amateurish bulletin board.

        I think it’s fine if you want to object to something, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to object to something which doesn’t exist, or you’ve just not bothered to explore nor understand.

      • jeff
        Venus distance to sun: 108.2 million km
        Earth distance to sun: 149.6 million km

        And you think that’s only slightly closer. That was the point you evaded.

      • jeff
        in the context of the distances of planets in our solar system to the sun, yet, it’s almost negligibly different.
        Even so, this particular aspect is utterly irrelevant to the point, which is that venus has a lot more heat energy trapped within, which is not due to it being closer.
        I understand you want to pick up on a non-point that has nothing to do with the actual point, this is the modus operandi of inhabitants here.

      • Poor caitie,

        You do know that at the same atmospheric pressures as Earth’s atmosphere, Venus is almost exactly the temperature it should be with respect to its distance from the sun. And that is despite it having nearly 96% CO2 in its atmosphere. ie CO2 has ZERO effect on Venus’s atmospheric temperature.

        Or were you ignorant of that fact as well ? More to learn, it seems.

      • Hi andy thanks again for your ongoing attitude, it does my case wonders.

        As I iterated above, CO2 does not hold onto radiative energy for very long – this is partly why its possible to make rather small CO2 lasers without high CO2 masses that need to be excited to a upper state. To be clear, the energy absorbed by CO2 is not the relevant parameter, what is relevant is the rate at which the energy is re-emitted. That the CO2 is thick matters – this is a quality known as optical depth. The higher the optical depth, the lower the probability that a photon will escape into space. Venus has a very high CO2 fraction as you say – this means the probability of an IR photon escaping into space is very small (or at least, smaller).

        That means the energy has to go somewhere. Since the CO2 just keeps on re-emitting , and since there is so much of it, the only way a photon can stop moving is if it hits the ground – the ground has a whole slew of permitted energy levels so it’s easily absorbed – which heats it up.

        I’m unclear why you are so interested in the atmospheric temperature – as you point out (accidentally) it has very little to do with it, what matters (also as you point out, accidentally) is the MASS of CO2 in the atmosphere, which decreases the probability an IR photon can escape into space – and actually generates significant reflection on the outside of the atmosphere too.

        So – in summary. CO2 has ZERO effect on the atmospheric temperature (except by convective radiation from the hot ground), but has a HUGE effect on the amount of heat energy trapped within the planet – all of this is observed and understood for a very, very long time. I hope you catch up.

      • Hello cait…..you pathetic drool. You remark upon how vitriolic people are towards you on this site and you sit and hen peck tiny little slights, harps and attacks upon everyone else. From your cozy, coal fire heated home sitting in your soft chair, pecking feverishly away at your keyboard withall of your applainces plugged in to the wall phantomely draining power while producing emmissions for the favor of your toast.
        Let us peer into the shallowness of some of your stupidity………”ohhh dak, doesnt you is knows about thermal properties of waters!!!??? You all is are sooooo is dumbies!!!”
        “Ohhhhhhh dayyyuk, you doesnt know is dats a glass is 90% fulls of ice’s, it is will over melts!!!!”
        —-you see, in writing you sentence about ice over flowing a glass you all at once show that you absolutely do not understand what you are talking about because the sentence you wrote made the point you were tryingto make……until you had to retract your dumb kindergarten science flop about ice.

        No, you cannot simply “retract” such a bastardization of simple science. You wrote the words with a meaning that you intended to use to convey your point…….and then, you found, you stupidly made the opposite.

      • caitiecaitie:

        It is clear that you did not understand the point made by JohnB.

        This is an explanation of it I posted a few days ago. Please read it. It concludes saying

        In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.

        So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.

        Richard

      • hello galen,
        There seems to be a lot of angsty abusive people on this site – is this how you folks think you can have an intelligent conversation presenting and discussing material?

        I suppose so – and it might also be why so many of you seem to be having so much trouble retaining high school chemistry and physics.

        Actually my house is not heated by coal, it’s nuclear, but I understand that reality actually has very little to do with your posts, you simply assert, abuse, and pretend you’re having a useful discussion.

        Galen, I think one of the most important things about being intellectually honest is to be open to correction – dont you think? Probably the worst thing is to be petulantly foot stomping when someone makes a perfectly valid point contrary to yours. I try to maintain that philosophy, and I think it’s demonstrated, but obviously you have an axe to grind.

        I dont see much in your post that is simply ranting actually. if you would like to rebut anything I’Ve said, go ahead, but hopefully you’ll have something with more substance than the kinds of intellect one can find on the primary school playground.

        I’m open to being corrected galen. If you’d like to correct me, I’m all for it. You have to stop ranting first.

      • Hello Richard,
        I’m sure there is a possibility I didn’t understand john’s post. let me explore:
        The concept is that models with slightly different parameters and models return slightly different results – though all are consistent with measurement, within the the same kind of scatter.

        We have two options: 1. we can pick a particular model that is “closest” to the measurement, and assert it is the “most” correct, and continue to refine and correct it – that’s fine. But it’s very slow – we dont necessarily understand the processes operative and so casting a wider net that considers slightly different operations, input etc. we can sample not only the parameterspace, but also the model space more widely. We have to be careful to “throw out” models that dont return similar levels accuracy, because obviously, they are less accurate.

        When we take those models and combine them, we’re saying something like : all these models are approximately and equivalently correct, therefore, the parameter and modelspace they explore are equivalently valid. We can either: parse the models to combine ALL the parameters and models, into one model, or we can equivalently combine the outputs of the models and achieve the same thing.

        Naturally, it’s inappropriate to combine two models that overlap significantly in parameters and model space, that would throw the statistics – but combining the different models results in a kind of supermodel (HA!), that in combination, explores more widely the model space and parameter space.

        Actually this happens quite often, not just in climate science, but in a few other sciences too, in fact, it’s famously used in the pursuit of the black body curve where models by jeans and rayleigh were combined – they explored different parameters, different models, but failed ultimately until they were combined (and even then,did not perfectly describe the relationship – only approximately, until planck came along.

        You might disagree – I dont understand why, but there is certainly a long and prestigious, effective and important precedent for combining models. It works.

      • caitiecaitie:

        How dare you!

        I took the trouble to direct you to an explanation of what you had misunderstood.
        You have replied with a complete distortion of what I wrote.

        Apologise.

        Richard

      • yes richard, i understand.
        that’s because what you wrote is irrelevant.ignores valid and demonstrably appropriate precedent etc. but most of all, I suspect it is just different to what you want to be true.
        Wanting something to be true richard, need not correlate with what is, in fact, true.
        I appreciate the exchange. I certainly learn a lot about the kinds of techniques people use here, to push their desired reality as actuality.

      • CC, the atmosphere of Mars has 10 times as much CO2 as does the Earth’s, and to use your words, it’s only a little bit further from the sun than the Earth is, yet it’s much, much colder than the Earth is.

      • caitiecaitie:

        You have to be the most offensive little oik it has been my misfortune to come across in many a year!

        Your writing this outrageous codswallop is inexcusable

        yes richard, i understand.
        that’s because what you wrote is irrelevant.ignores valid and demonstrably appropriate precedent etc. but most of all, I suspect it is just different to what you want to be true.
        Wanting something to be true richard, need not correlate with what is, in fact, true.
        I appreciate the exchange. I certainly learn a lot about the kinds of techniques people use here, to push their desired reality as actuality.

        You said you did not understand a point made by JohnB so I referred you to my recent explanation of that same issue. My explanation cited, referenced, quoted and explained peer reviewed publications by me (1999) and Kiehl (2007) that have never been refuted by anybody in any way.

        That explanation is very, very “relevant”, “ignores” no “precedent” of anything and IS TRUE.

        Your unjustifiable and unwarranted suspicions are insulting and abusive. APOLOGISE.

        My “techniques” are evidence and logic. This known as science.
        Your “techniques” are idiotic and untrue assertions interlaced with abuse.

        My anger is real. I repeat. APOLOGISE.

        Richard

      • “You have to be the most offensive little oik it has been my misfortune to come across in many a year!”

        Richard, I laughed until I cried real tears when I read that. I know you are angry, but that has to be the best retort I’ve seen in a while. It’s also high praise (not) considering both the number of, and degree of, the oiks we see here! Maybe Anthony needs an oik rating system so they can still post but be easily identified.

        Hugs

      • richard.
        “Your “techniques” are idiotic and untrue assertions interlaced with abuse.”
        And this, right after;
        “You have to be the most offensive little oik…”
        “Your writing this outrageous codswallop is inexcusable”

        interlaced with abuse indeed.
        Further comment from me will be denounced as “trolling” – meanwhile other posters apparently have free licence to abuse and demean at liberty. The double standards here are astonishing.

        Richard, I’m glad you are publishing. Really. I’ll take the time to read your papers, but call your pups in to heel, or at least acknowledge the hypocrisy here is prolific.

      • Troll posting as catiecatie:

        Everybody can see that my factual statements about your unsolicited offensive, insulting and abusive behaviour were fully justified.

        Stop trying to make excuses: n one are possible. APOLOGISE.

        Richard

      • Sorry, I’m in Oz and time zones muck up answers. CC you didn’t understand my point at all.

        You say; “The concept is that models with slightly different parameters and models return slightly different results”

        The situation is that models using wildly different parameters are yielding the same results. As Richard so clearly pointed out, at best, only one of those parameter sets can be correct which leads to the obvious logical question: “Why are models which are fed incorrect parameters giving the “right” answer?

        BTW, your medical analogy was beyond silly. To be analogous to climate models the medical models would need to be including variable parameters like 3 hearts, 2 livers and 14 spleens. Your basic assumption that parameters are “slightly different” is way more than slightly wrong.

  7. They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions.

    Well, no, the relationship is logarithmic, unless they are being perversely obtuse in their language.

    • Thanks for the video Jamal Munshi. Yes I had seen it before but had forgotten it. Indeed, they are playing word games.

    • (not to inform you, Robert, just to clarify to prevent misunderstanding by an uninformed reader)

      “… the {conjectured} relationship {to the temperature in the open system called “earth”} is logarithmic …”

      • Just to help you tease apart what was actually said above, and what you think they said janet.

        The finding is: “that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions”

        That is to say: if the (globally cumulative) emissions increase, the temperature increases proportionally, in most parts of the world.
        Now, the actual mechanics behind that heat transfer, storage, latent heat, thermal momentum, emissivity of the atmosphere and reflectivity of the planet is not described, and they certainly do have their own kinds of relationships with each other, energy input etc. etc. They have their own various indices of relationships.

        BUT – the ensemble of systems that is the planet, behave consistently with a model that shows temperature increase in most parts of the world, is linear with (global.y) cumulative emissions.

        I hope you can see the difference between what you said , and what was actually said. Because the difference is monumental.

      • “They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions.”

        Damn, who are the holdouts? I thought the magic gas made it Global.

      • ‘They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions.’

        What about the rest of the world? Enquiring minds want to know. Perhaps we have some unknown mechanism there?

      • …so they have thrown global warming theory out the window

        Global warming theory say that emissions/CO2 raises temps just a little, and that slight increase cause global humidity to rise, which raises temps again, which raises humidity again….wash rinse repeat

        it’s actually run away global humidity

        but just like global warming, climate change, extreme weather….irritable climate syndrome

        It’s morphed into all CO2 all the time…..never was

      • I wonder, cc, if you are even capable…. well, here goes — another try at penetrating the fog:

        CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

      • Come, come, now, cc. You were doing pretty good at being “sciency,” there for awhile.

        Now, a bold-faced l1e (7:36pm). Tsk. Tsk.

        PLEASE, do not stop, now, cc, you are doing a better job than anyone here at proving just how ridiculous AGWers and their conjecture are.

      • @ Janice aka Janet…finally cc admits that warming has stopped..cc’s words..”data does not show warming has not stopped.”. Your attempt at educating cc is showing success.

      • J, GM.

        When your argument relies exclusively on sifting through obvious grammatical errors, your case is lost.
        I do hope you will, one day, actually look at the data, and think for yourself applying reason, sanity and hopefully, a bit of understanding.

        In the meantime, picking out grammatical errors has creedence perhaps, among the more … uh.. cunning. of us, but not people who bother to examine and think.

        oh, J, GM. since there might be some doubt: I use the word “cunning” here, in the Shakespearian sense, but I’m glad that I was able to impart something about the aspects of thermal momentum and heat capacity of ice to you J. I have no doubt you completely ignored it.

      • Science scholar (your knowledge as demonstrated in your comments over the past years has proven this to be true, regardless of what you do (or did) to earn a living) Goldminor, thank you for that. I am too used to the caliber of commenters around here (who once in awhile type slower than their quick minds) and automatically gave her the benefit of the doubt in her mixed up syntax (i.e., assigned to it the logical meaning based on her previous comments). It likely was NOT mixed up at all! GREAT NEWS! Even if only Freudian!

        Sharp eye, there, Goldminor.

        And thanks for the “Janice.” Much appreciated.

      • Janice, although I always scored highest on math skill, my reading comprehension abilities were a close second to my math ability. Point of interest, note that many here and elsewhere use the term “how come” in a sentence. If back in 7th grade I was to use that phrase in class, then the much feared Sister Miriam would whack me or anyone else using the term with her ruler. The proper form is to ask “why” did something occur or not. Alternatively, one could say “How is it that..” How would make a good name for a dog. Come How. How, come here now!.

      • J, GM.
        The rumour is that an ostrich can pretend something is not happening, simply by putting their head in sand. I’m sorry, but head-in-sand-putting does not constitute a rational argument, and no amount of trumped up credentials is going to make it otherwise.
        The internet is a lovely place to brag about one’s credentials, but when the writing is on the wall, simply announcing how wonderfully literate one is, does not justify turning around to ignore it.

        You guys have a choice – you can inform yourselves, and consider aspects such as fundamental thermodynamics, heat transfer, thermal momentum, and thermal capacity, emissivity, reflectivity etc. etc.
        Or you can post on places like this – and when people mention them adopt a naive and vacant expression and then declare someone else is idiotic because they bothered to address concepts that were hitherto foreign to you.

        Again, the ostrich technique works only insofar that you dont know what hit you.

      • thanks bruce, which is why I was careful to caveat with “The rumour is…”

        You guys love to focus on the non-points. it’s just red herrings all over the place here isn’t it? undoubtedtly a bit on the nose?

      • ‘The rumour is’ global temps are rising. Can you explain why the current Holocene out of the past 5 inter-glacials (~400,000 yrs) has the lowest temps YET has the highest CO2 levels? I have asked this same question to many AGWer’s and I have yet to receive a single answer, NOT ONE.

        Maybe you’re the one that can answer my question.

      • Hi bruce
        I expect lots of people have attempted to answer your question, and some of them probably correctly. What is affecting your ability to parse the answer is that simply, it’s not what you want them to say.

        From the plots you’re showing, it seems there’s generally increases in ppm by just over 50%, in a few 10s of thousands of years – is that correct? Of course its difficult to be exact – it’s only approximate – there is a lot of scatter in that the ppw data. There’s also a lot of scatter in the deltaC.

        So what you are asking is – are the two datasets in your plots correlated? The way you would answer that of course, is to construct a scatter plot that simply correlates the two parameters, x and y, ppm and deltaC.

        Now, bruce. This is only an eyeball estimate: but it seems to me that those to datasets would in fact, be very well correlated, but with some scatter or even lag. but Its not robust and it may not even be linear – further- the sampling of the ppm data is not at the same cadence, and have a resolution of a few 10s of thousand years.

        So – unhappily for you, your question is actually answered by you, not me. I can’t get access to those data to explore it, but maybe you can.

        What you have to do is compute a matrix that can characterise the relationship – intrinsic to that correlation will be an error – characterised by the scatter around the relationship. if it’s a linear relationship then the effect the scatter has on the correlation parameter will be straightforward.

        By eyeball, it’s not true to say that the two parameters are in lockstep. Even you can see that. So the question is actually this: since you can easily see the two parameters are not in lock step, but trace each other somewhat loosly, and with notable departure from a perfect correlation – WHY do you expect them to be?

        put simply – you have no reason to assert the two are in perfect lockstep, yet that is what you demand.

        Another way of putting this: the data you show invalidates the question – your question does not apply to the data.

        Now I suspect you’ve been told that before – you just dont like the answer. That you like it or not is actually irrelevant, the simple fact is: the data does not suggest your question has any merit.

        bruce – measure the correlation, show your question is valid, then we can address it.

      • CC, the above graph is derived from the latest Vostock Antarctic ice core data, and whilst I admit the resolution of the graph is low, it is important and fundamental that it is correctly interpreted, clearly understood and that causation is established, ie. Cause before Effect.

        Take notice of the two arrows (red and blue) marking the period known as the Eemian warm inter-glacial (~2 degree C warmer then our current Modern Warm Period, with less CO2). It appears the commencement of this period is simultaneous (give or take a few hundred years), however, it is very obvious that temperatures rapidly declined before there was a reduction in CO2 levels.

        Conclusion.

        It is not possible that atmospheric CO2 volume is controlling temperature but rather, it is the reverse effect which is taking place.

        A reduction in temperature occurs in advance of a delayed reduction in atmospheric CO2 volume!

        Now in all your gobbly-gook reply above, you still have not answered my question:

        Why does the current Holocene (Modern Warm Period) have the highest CO2 levels YET has the lowest temperature of the previous four inter-glacials?

        BTW, please use a capital ‘B’ in my name.

      • I’ll also add cc, every ice-core drilled and analysed to date, shows an increase in temperatures BEFORE there is an increase in CO2 volume (by several hundred years at the least). But according to climate science this trend has been reversed by man’s measly 4-5% out of a total of 0.04%

      • Hi again bruce.
        Just out of interest, i did the work for you. I digitised your images and extracted the data simply as ascii x,y. Then resampled the extracted y values so the intervals in the ppm an temperature datasets were the same. This is not quite right of course, because the ACTUAL sampling rate is unknown to me, but it’s enough for the purpose here.

        then I simply plotted each parameters: ppm and temperatures against each other (since I now had a dataset with data taken at the same years – interpolated with a cubic spline).
        The results are actually pretty interesting:
        firstly, the ppm and tmperaures are easily and clearly described with a linear order=1 fit.. in fact, that is EXACTLY what this article above is saying – it’s linear.
        Secondly, there is significant scatter, and a simple principle component analysis shows the scatter about the fit has a dispersion of something like 1.4 degrees- now to be clear, that constitutes a probability – i.e. any given point has a probability of something like 68% of being separated from a simple linear fit by a value of 1.4 or less.
        Interestingly though, when I over plot the linear fit – guess where that last datapoint falls?
        EXACTLY on the line – i.e. your question is provably invalid – you’re asking why that data point is discrepant relative to the ensemble – but in fact, it’s one of the least discrepant in the whole set.

        What you should be asking is why discrepant values are discrepant, but even then , you have to take into account that within a normal statistical analysis, there’s not much on that plot that is seriously outlying the ensemble.

        If you like I can post the plots, I dont know how to do that but I’ll take the time to figure it out if you wish.

        I think your question is answered.

      • hello again bruce.
        Since you didnt understand the “gobbled gook”, and had to reask your question.

        “Why does the current Holocene (Modern Warm Period) have the highest CO2 levels YET has the lowest temperature of the previous four inter-glacials?”

        It doesn’t.
        That observation is statistically insignificant.

        I even did the analysis to prove it, and you can too. Within the scatter of the relationship of ppm and deltaC, the values are essentially the same – actually they conform neatly to a linear fit – but that’s exactly what the article above describes. However there is significant scatter around a linear fit, to the tune of something like 1.4 degrees. That scatter is at least approximately normal distribution (this means ‘gaussian’).

        This is not gobbled gook at all, it’s basic statistics. But that you consider it nonsense is revealing and says a great deal about your ability to parse, process and understand these data.. not necessarily good things.

      • Hi again bruce,
        So I wanted to check the statistical validity of your observation that there was a discernible and consistent offset in the profiles – or at least, that the cooling consistently preceded the drop in ppm.

        one way of doing this is to compute the derivative of the two traces, and show there is a population that exists in one set that is negative while the other is zero, or positive. As I pointed out before, there is something of a correlation – i.e. we’d nominally expect then, that the derivatives of the two sets fall approximately in two groups, clustered in kinds of teardrop shapes with the point of the drop towards the origin – however if there is a consistent lag or lead in one of the sets, then there would be an additional population residing in the orthogonal parts of that plane – i.e. not where the derivative of both sets are positive oor both are negative, but where one is + the other is – .

        So, performing this quick computation shows that no, there is no tendency for a drop in temperature to consistently lead a drop in ppm.

        That is to say, it’s not a robust observation – you can speculate all you want about it, but the overwhelmingly consistent relationship is that these two parameters are correlated, with some scatter.

        Interestingly enough – you’ve just made me validate the paper that is the subject of this post entire blog – i.e ppm is linearly proportional to deltaC.

        We should co-author a paper, though I suspect the finding is not what you wanted. Unfortunately, what you want and what is reality do not necessarily coincide. No amount of insulting or derision will ever, ever make that any different.

      • caitiecaitie
        January 21, 2016 at 12:02 am

        “Change points of global temperature”
        “The data supporting the interpretation of “stopping” does not exist.”

        The article is sort of a meta-analysis- summarizing and combining material from a number of studies-. But it really isn’t. The article doesn’t analyze data, it analyzes opinions such as ‘pause’, ‘hiatus’, ‘slow’ referring to many different temperature datasets in some 32 articles. The Nature article itself apparently only refers to one actual dataset- http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. There is no reference to other datasets that don’t show similar trends.

        Meta-analysis has all sorts of problems, especially when it does not focus on comparable materials. The Nature article includes everything from newspaper articles to wwweb articles to many scientific and non-scientific articles published in a variety of journals. It includes self-referenced articles, co-author references, and associates articles which introduces an apparent bias in the methods, conclusions, and discussion.

        I found only one reference that actually addressed change points(changes on slope) in the temperature record, but the results were 5 years out of date, cutting off before most of the data during the period of interest and hence has no bearing on the time period of the “pause”, 1997-present.

        All in all, give it a pass.

      • Many thanks phil
        I find what you wrote difficult to corroborate with the article.

        you seem to be objecting to a few things.
        1. that it contains an analysis of the frequency of usage
        2. that the literature that is the subject of the study is diverse
        3. that the data referred to in the paper is the only one that shows evidence for a hiatus and is old

        The context is to determine the validity of the claim in the literature that describes it as a hiatus. The purpose of the article therefor must address the frequency for the description, and the motivation. It also takes into account unreviewed literature – I’m not sure why that was necessary, but it has no consequence other than extending the study into the public domain.
        Then it must determine if the motivation is valid, and comment on the reason for the frequency.

        More to the point, obviously the paper must refer to the data where the description applies – obviously that means the data that is quite old – It could obtain new data, which is also done, but then people would complain the data are different, which it is.

        In fact, my summary of your complaints is exactly the reverse. Were I to wish to read a study into the validity of the frequent terminogy use of a term in the literature, I would want to know who does it, why they do it, and the data they’ve examined that leads them to concoct the term.

        I dont understand what is wrong with any of what it did.

  8. So, this paper ‘proves’ that the climate models predict polar AGW amplification. Just look at all that modeled angry red heat in the Arctic. Bookmark this post, because it aint happening and the cyclic Arctic ice recovery is well underway. Nadir was probably 2007, with recovery to probably late 2030’s or more. This, plus the infamous missing tropical troposphere hotspot, are surer silver bullet killers of the IPCC climate models and their religious adherents than even the pause. No pause statistics, just simple aint there and didn’t happen.
    Its about political sound bites now, more than science. A good one here.

    • Where is the politics? I’ve missed it.

      I thought this article was about how a climate model with results consistent with the data, demonstrated a linear relationship of global temperature increase with global emission increase.

      Not much to argue with there. The model is valid if it is consistent with the data. Would you like to comment on the details of the validity of the model please?

      • Since there was no science in the above article, what else could it be? Insanity?

        CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

      • You say “The model is valid if it is consistent with the data”.

        For the sake of discussion we can let that go if by ‘consistent’ you mean ‘what it theorises will happen in the real world actually happens in the real world’. For which climate model is that true?

        Not withstanding your answer to the above, they say “Using simulation results from 12 global climate models”. Not seeing any real world validation here. Seems like models all the way down.

        What they have done is draw a pretty picture of the models output.

      • J.
        The entire article was following the scientific method – it is therefore, science.
        You’re free to question the veracity of the science, and you should – that’s how the method works.
        Ranting in capital letters, in direct contradiction to the measured data is not science. sorry.
        Foot stomping, pouting, petulant tantrums also won’t get published. Data and testing the models do.

        Phil.
        “What they have done is draw a pretty picture of the models output”
        This is what science does. Constructs a model – typically semi-empirical, and compares the output to measured data.
        I dont understand why you’re having trouble with this. Are you distressed that people have made a map of what models predict? why?

      • Am I distressed by the picture. Not in the least. What I find unfortunate is the huge leap to the conclusion that this somehow represents reality.

        You say “This is what science does. Constructs a model – typically semi-empirical, and compares the output to measured data. I dont (sic) understand why you’re having trouble with this.”

        With this I have no trouble at all. But this is not what they did. If you think it is you have work to do.

        PS Phil is my son.

      • thanks phil
        Do you mind if I call you phil? I can see you seem to generally have difficulty extracting the message from messages with minor typos to the degree that you seem to regard them as valid leverage against a reasoned point. I hope not, I dont generally consider it an impediment to communication myself, but if you’re seriously struggling and not just rather desperate to score a point in the absence of all else, let me know.

        “This is what science does. Constructs a model – typically semi-empirical, and compares the output to measured data. I dont (sic) understand why you’re having trouble with this.”
        With this I have no trouble at all. But this is not what they did. If you think it is you have work to do.”

        1. The 12 models were constructed and published
        2, 12 models were compared to data and adjusted where necessary
        3. The 12 models were combined and published
        4. Next – compare with data.

      • “The model is valid if it is consistent with the data”

        That sounds like “affirming the consequent”. Wikipedia says:

        Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement. The corresponding argument has the general form: If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P.

      • Hello roger,
        It might surprise you that the scientific method has been successfully in operation for a few hundred years at least, and probably a lot more than that.

        You might be conflating “valid” with “correct” – they are not necessarily the same thing.

        For example, it is valid for me to say “god exists” – but this is simply an assertion – it’s completely arbitrary and has absolutely no intelligent basis whatsoever. It is therefore also unsound.

        Something that is valid simply means – it works. It does not necessarily mean “it must be the reality”. As part of the scientific method, any hypothesis must sustain ongoing testing to confirm it is valid, in as many ways as possible. If it fails, the hypothesis must be either altered, or appended.

        The scientific method is how we stopped so many people dying trom the bubonic plauge. Prayer didn’t help us, and nor did the religious naysayers insisting they were right – yet they too, could not understand the functional scientific principles leading to the valid – and as it turned out – correct, hypothesis regarding the cause of the plague, and consequently, the cure. (or at least, the prevention).

    • Well I would have thought it is obvious. Heat rises so all the heat went to the top of the map.

      Guess I could go back and actually read some of the vitreol and reasonable comments, but in the end I am sure I have it right. As long as no one takes the lid off the pot it will boil … /sarc off

      Time to put another log on the fire and go outside. brrrrrr!

  9. What? CO2 is NOT a well mixed gas??? How is this possible if it’s well mixed? Is CO2 biased? Does it prefer to warm cold areas more than it prefers to warm already warm areas? Why does it hate snow so much? Is it anti-ice?

    “Leduc and Matthews, along with co-author Ramo?n [sic] de Eli?a [sic] from Ouranos, a Montreal-based consortium on regional climatology, analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.”

    Oh…so they were just making crap up! I get it….so…nothing to see here folks…move along.

    • Cooler places tend to have much bigger vertical temperature gradient. That is the most sensible reason, why the tropical climate is more stable than polar climate.

  10. I still reject he idea that they can accurately measure the temperature of the Earth today, let alone fifty or a hundred years ago. Even if they can get it right for the present, there is nothing accurate to compare it to in the past.

    • nonsense.
      We simply compare the results of temperature measurements with various ways, then compare them to “proper” measurements of today, and apply appropriate error bars.

      If you’re saying the measurements of past temperatures have infinite error bars, great – citation needed.

      • With what “various ways” do you compare the “results?” How does one compare anything with a “way?” Why are you not comparing the “ways” (assuming this is something meaningful) with the temperature measurements? Are your “results” anything like the junk BEST puts out?

        (btw: who is “we”? you and D. Nuccatelli?)

      • A poorly described rebuttal. Getting a so called “accurate temperature” of the globe today is, I think, a far more unrealistic a proposition that you believe. They give us an average temperature to three decimal places, but in reality, the guess must be plus or minus 1C.

        Or, could you describe what you think they do more accurately than you have so far, as to exactly how they get a single average figure of temperature for a rotating water world in open free space.

      • CC says:

        If you’re saying the measurements of past temperatures have infinite error bars, great – citation needed.

        CC, if you’re saying the measurements of past temperatures have any error bars, great – citation needed.

        There. Post your error bars. Make sure they’re in good agreement with each other.

      • Somebody please tell me a few things…

        1. How close can we measure tree rings?
        2. How many temperature measuring stations were there in the world 75 years ago and how evenly were they disbursed?
        3. How many measurements did they take of the various layers of the atmosphere 75 years ago…how often? What kind of coverage?
        4. Before the Argos buoys were launched, how was out coverage for measuring the temperature of the ocean at various depths? Yes, ships took surface temperatures but what about the mile or so below that?

        Seriously, other than the satellite data, which doesn’t even measure temperature directly, we have probably never had a reliable way to measure the average temperature of the entire Earth.

        When I hear that the Earth has warmed 0.8 C over the last 100 years, I wonder what the quality of the data is that we are comparing it to.

      • caitiecaitie:

        You ask

        If you’re saying the measurements of past temperatures have infinite error bars, great – citation needed.

        That depends on what you are talking about when you say “measurements of past temperatures”.

        Determinations of global and hemispheric ‘average’ temperatures do have “infinite error bars” and no citation is needed for this.

        There is no agreed definition of global or hemispheric temperature. Each team that determines it uses its own definition and changes it almost every month: this is acceptable because there is no possibility of a calibration standard.

        A measurement is a comparison with a standard.

        In times past, measurement standards varied with the person measuring; e.g. a ‘yard’ of length depended on the length of the arm of the person doing the measurement.

        Now, precise measurement standards are maintained and measuring devices are calibrated (directly or indirectly) against them.

        There is only one Earth so a calibration standard for its global temperature is not possible; n.b. a measurement is a comparison with a standard.

        So, there is no agreed definition of global or hemispheric temperature, and if there were then there is no possibility of a calibration standard for it. In other words, any determinations of global or hemispheric temperature have “infinite error bars”.

        I suggest you read this especially its Appendix B.

        Richard

      • hello again richard. This idea seems a rehash of your earlier point. I’m sorry nature rejected your paper because it was a discussive paper. There is nothing stopping you from obtaining data to perform whatever analysis you deem more appropriate – and therein, no doubt, you could include a comparison of your original data with that from other work.

        Your points seem a little contradictory.
        Your complaint is that no two groups are actually measuring the temperatures within the exact same kinds of environments and active processes, and the disparity of processes invalidates them being referred to collectively, as a mean global temp.

        As you say, that depends on what you think you mean – now. applying only a little cerebral work here, nonzero, but small, I interpret that description to mean the average of temperatures in the context of the matter being addressed by the work.
        Of course, “mean global temperature” will therefore be different, possibly even slightly so, from day to day – and certainly between papers that measure ocean temps only, and those that measure land temps only – and indeed, those that measure both, or more, or none. etc. etc. etc.

        Context matters, and to associate a meaning to the words used, you have to read the paper. Its valid for you to ask “what PART of the globe did you measure”, and you should – or you could read the paper, and you should.

        There need not be a calibration standard at all – we know what a temperature means, we know how to measure it. we know what 1 degree means, but it’s probably useful to define a terminology and even if you like, a protocol – “mean global temps are those measured simultaneously on sunday morning on a thermometer 1.5 m underground in the middle of each continent” or something ..

        As for the error bars being infinite. What tripe. It’s so nonsense I wont even bother to ask you to demonstrate the error propagation, I know you’re making it up. Yes, you need either a citation, or a mathematical defense. If you can’t or won’t provide it when I ask, dont talk about it.

    • thanks J for your ongoing commitment to presenting the mindset of the everyman .. at least, those who wouldn’t sit through math or science class in high school.
      Actually you’re doing a great service with your questions – they’re simple and easy to answer.

      There are a few ways to compare results – for example, you can demonstrate if one population (say, measured data) is representative of another population (say, a model), with someone like a simply chi-squared test. – here the statistic is indicative of the match, and is sensitive to the “degrees of freedom” – that is, the number of ways that the model and data could not match. Another typical way is to conduct a kolmogorove-smirnov test, which is a more appropriate way to compare populations that are of very unequal population sizes. These are admittedly what you learn in 12th grade in my country, so youre not guaranteed to have been exposed to them.

      by “we” I mean humanity. At least, those who learned the math.

      • I understand the names for these commonplace statistics might be confusing to some who are unfamiliar with statistics.
        I also understand that someone who probably has no exposure to these common statistical techniques would require me to be more careful when I attempt to educate them with information – okay, here goes. Kolmogorov-smirnov. There it is, sans the extraneous ‘e’. It’s made all the difference right?

      • Thanks marcus, your comment about me being a socialist has said more about the calibre of your reply than you might understand.

        Back to mathematics for a moment – which has nothing to do with socialism and I have no idea why you think it does – it smells like you’re just looking for some leverage to dismiss some easily-understood concept. Again, marcus, this is a technique we learn in high school in my country. It’s not hard, it’s pretty simple, and it’s an answer to J’s question.

        You’re perfectly free to continue to assert whatever you like about something you admit you know nothing about. Continue marcus, to be fearful of the reds under your bed, maybe you should stick to just that?

      • ‘ caitiecaitie
        January 20, 2016 at 9:06 pm

        I understand the names for these commonplace statistics might be confusing to some who are unfamiliar with statistics.’

        You are au fait with statistics? Good, Can you please explain the good fit of Karl et al 2015 significance of 0.10

      • “those who wouldn’t sit through math or science class in high school”

        Says she, from experience.

        Make that “couldn’t”

      • Ahhh Cait….the everyman of science!!!!

        From the guy who thinks……
        “A glass 90% full of ice will over flow if it melts.”………b-b-b-but I retracted my belief directly after I wrote the statement!!!!!!

      • Galen, andy,
        thank you again for your ongoing bitterness.
        I’m sorry you dont accept scientific intellectual honesty – it makes it difficult to regard your posts as anything more than unmitigated trolling.

        On the other hand, it does go very far to demonstrating the levels you and your ilk have to stoop, to ultimately say and achieve nothing at all.

        As I said above, if you have any legitimate and intelligent points to add, I’m all ears. There’s not much forthcoming at this point though. Can I predict you will continue to provide nothing of substance? Feel free to validate my hypothesis.

    • I still reject he idea that they can accurately measure the temperature of the Earth today, let alone fifty or a hundred years ago. Even if they can get it right for the present, there is nothing accurate to compare it to in the past.

      It’s not a matter of accuracy, it’s a matter there being no global temperature. You can’t average disparate intensive properties and end up with anything physically meaningful.

      • yet we can measure the global speed of a car, even though there are parts of it moving much, much more quickly, and much, much more slowly.
        The “speed of a car” has physical meaning. It’s the average speed of the ensemble of parts that is a car. Of course, if we’re talking about the speed of the top part of the wheels, the answer is incorrect – but we’re not interested in that disparate intensive property, we are interested in the speed of the ensemble.

        “global” temperature has a statistical meaning – it’s more than disingenuous for anyone to think that “hot in the southern hemisphere” means “hot in the northern hemisphere” – and we generally dont say something like this because we implicitly understand it is absurd.

        Temperature itself is an ensemble quality, and can plausibly be affected by localised processes. If I say it’s cold in my house, I’m obviously talking about the mean temperature that I experience, even though I might be heating a room. The statement “my house is cold” has significance and a context, regardless of which room is hot.

      • But if you measure the speed of one car, then the speed of 2000 others, and average them, you haven’t really come up with a physical speed of all the cars.

        Try reading this.

      • as I attempted to say jeff. “temperature” means “mean kinetic heat energy” of an ensemble.

        I certainly can measure the speed of all cars on the planet and come up with a value that has significance – it’s simple to do that. I can also measure the salary of all people working in my city, and come up with a value that also has significance.

        What matters is how that value is interpreted – and that’s what your article says too – among other things. It complains that attempting to associate a single statistic to a parameter that is widely variant, is inappropriate.
        Well, it aint. In ANY fluid, the kinetic energies of the individuals in that ensemble will vary widely, and for different reasons. The ensemble has a normalised distribution – or we pretend it does.
        This is probably the crux of the complaint – that the ensemble is not expected to have a normal distribution – and that’s perfectly legitimate thing to say, but it’s STILL appropriate to measure a TEMPERATURE – which is defined as the mean kinetic energy of the ensemble.

        How you treat that later, matters.
        E.g. I can take a mean of test scores of kids in 1st grade and 10th grade, to produce a mean score. It the mean invalid? no, it’s not, it’s fine. It has an actual meaning. that the 1st grade kids score low and the other score high are data points contributing to the statistic. How you INTERPRET that statistic matters – for example, you can compare the test results between two schools – that one may be much higher than another is meaningful. Or, you can compare test results of the same school, over 10 years. It also has significance.
        or you can measure the temperature of different rooms in a school, and see how that statistic varies over time.

        or you can measurer the temperature of different parts of the planet, generate an ensemble, and see how THAT varies too.
        I’m sorry, it has meaning. It really does, not necessarily in isolation, but in a comparative context.

    • Indeed, as Mark Steyn said at the Senate hearing on “data or dogma”, [with all the continuing adjustments going on to past and present temperatures], how can you predict what the temperature will be in 2100 with such certainty when you can’t predict what the temperature ‘will be’ in 1950!

  11. 280 X 4= 1120 ppm

    And they only saw how much increase? LOL! Looks like we have nothing to worry about for a very long time then…

  12. How would CO2, which is a constant around the globe, trapping IR that is relatively constant, possibly cause warming in the N and cooling in the S? How does the effect of CO2 to the opposite at the poles? Do the laws of physics cease to exist in the S Pole?

      • lol — … well…. it’s on the top of that globe sitting on the table in their classroom, ISN’T IT? There ya go! Demonstrative evidence.

      • Janice. spend a few moments to examine a geographical map that doesn’t have the polar ice on it.
        Notice how much land there is not, at the north pole.
        When we do science janice, uninformed quips dont rate. You might not have read a scientific journal ever before, but if you choose to inform yourself in such a way, you’ll notice the absence of prepubescent attempts at humour.

      • Poor cc — wow. LOL!

        While your rantings are amusing, “when we do {humor, cc,} we {don’t simply do our best imitation of Uncle Pete after he had one too many}.”

      • I can understand you interpret basic geography as rantings.

        In fact, that you consider relevant information, ignored by you, as rantings is probably a basic necessity. It’s common in many institutions that rely on lack of, or misinformation to perpetuate. Some people go to a special house every sunday to talk about it.

        Be that as it may janice. The data exist, the facts exist, and now amount of pointless and uninformed sniping is ever going to change it. However, it does serve as a weird sideshow for the rest of us, of the calibre of “everybody loves raymond” – my apologies if that was your favourite show.

      • CC, just in case you ever return to this blog. We’ve been here for years and discussed many hundreds of blog entries. Janice is an old hand around here, you however are a new entry and trying to throw your weight around. You’re making a fool of yourself.

      • Greg C says:You’re making a fool of yourself.

        And being insufferable. A teeny bit of humility goes a long way.

        The basic fact, which the alarmist crowd avoids or deflects around, is this.

        That graph demolishes the princilpal argument and prediction of the climate alarmist crowd. They claimed incessantly that rising CO2 would cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

        They were flat wrong. It didn’t happen. Their conjecture has been falsified by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth.

        Scientists who have accepted the fact that their conjecture was debunked get respect. The ones who still argue about it are looked upon as politicians, not scientists.

      • thanks Greg Cavanagh

        Yes the old dog. I understand.
        Normally they offend only the sense of smell, and the kindest thing to do is.. you know…

        But I was encouraged that I was able to help contribute to J’s repository of knowledge on matters like the concept of heat capacity and latent heat of melting. If she’d been here for as long as you say, I find it a curious that they were not encountered before. Possibly though, they were, and it just didn’t sink in.

        Being an old dog does not REALLY mean you can’t learn new things – the concept of heat capacity is hardly new – being more than a few decades old, but I can sense it’s new to many people who seem to regard being a regular here, as a badge of honour.

        I dont make the same kinds of claims – it’s not useful to spend a long time anywhere, if you’re going to refuse to learn.

      • Thanks greg.
        It’s interesting you contend that discussion of matters like this, in (what I hope is) a more informed context is making a fool of myself.

        I’d rather suppose the opposite. I’ve never understood the reasoning behind “I have no idea what it is you’re talking about, but whatever it is, it’s wrong”.

        The comments posed here – some – are simply missing consideration of important details – basic statistics, basic physics, etc. You seem to regard talking about those things – as opposed to ignoring them – as foolish.

        Could you explain why attempting to be more complete, and offering more complete information to people who are obviously without it, is foolish?

        If I get things wrong greg, I’m very happy for you to point it out and if necessary, I’ll accept the correction – but that’s pretty different from me providing information that is simply not accessed by some posters here. Why is doing that a bad thing?

      • Sure thing CC. You are wrong with your approach to people, you are a self-righteous condescending [snip]. You belittle everybody who you do not agree with. There, if you understand that last sentence, perhaps you will learn something from this blog too.

        Oh and just for the record, most every statement you make has been wrong headed in some fashion. Others point out your errors but you simply reply in a condescending tone, dismiss their objections, and refuse to understand anything but your own beliefs.

        I wouldn’t waste my time trying to correct any of your errors even though you offer to accept my correction. You haven’t accepted anybody else’s and I have no doubt you’d do the same to me.

        Calling Janice an old dog and suggesting she be put down is exhibit (A) to demonstrate your condescending rude behaviour.

      • cephus0

        . Ignore Antarctica since it’s too far south to count much.

        Why? It’s an interesting claim, but – over the course of a full year, the average square kilometer of Antarctic sea ice at the edge of the ice pack down south receives 1.7 times the energy of a square kilometer of Arctic sea ice. Why do you claim a region receiving and reflecting far more energy “doesn’t count much’?

        Is it not the warmist concern about the global heat balance? Losing more Arctic sea ice only serves to cool the planet 7 months of the year.

    • A little bit of geography.

      Antarctica is a land mass. It also sticks deep , deep into the water.

      1. land does not move. water does.
      2. Land has thermal momentum that moving water does not.
      3. land sticking into the water disrupts water flow, so that there is no water mixed with a solid land mass.

      • I am?
        I thought this was common knowledge – until I fortunately encountered this place.
        I also though things like heat capacity and latent heats of transformation formed part of a basic curriculum for most people who were sufficiently positioned to own or have access to a computer.

        Clearly that assumption was wrong, but if you want to regard having some basic geography as outstanding, go right ahead.

      • Yeah Cait….you thought a glass 90% full of ice would melt over the top……until you wrote that stupidity at this site.
        WOW, how you’ve grown.

      • hello again galen.
        You seem to be implicitly admitting you have nothing of any substance to draw on?
        Thats okay – you can play in the corner. I dont mind XD

    • dbstealy,
      it’s okay to declare something to be incorrect of course. but you need more leverage – in the form of fact.

      Now, the fact that is driving this issue is that temperatures are rising, faster than can be modelled using pretty much anything else that can be considered. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong, but it means the models that consider only those factors are incomplete. Models which incorporate AGW are significantly closer to the mark.
      That they are closer to the mark means you MUST consider them to be valid. The more accurately they represent the data, or the more physical sense they make, the more seriously you have to regard them.

      As a slightly related note – there’s not actually anything wrong with dispensing in a carbon economy, in the longer term. Sure it means you can’t thump your chest, hanging out of your monster truck, but who cares?

      • caitiecaitie

        it’s okay to declare something to be incorrect of course. but you need more leverage – in the form of fact.

        Now, the fact that is driving this issue is that temperatures are rising, faster than can be modelled using pretty much anything else that can be considered.

        No, that is explicitly NOT true. Global average temperatures are STAGNANT (steady, for those of you reading Rio Linda) while it is the MODELED temperatures of 21 of the 23 MODELS that have risen faster than ANYTHING measured over the past 18 years.

        As a slightly related note – there’s not actually anything wrong with dispensing in a carbon economy, in the longer term. Sure it means you can’t thump your chest, hanging out of your monster truck, but who cares?

        No, that too is explicitly NOT true.
        Killing the global fossil fueled economy will deliberately KILL some 2.5 to 3.5 BILLION of innocents, condemning all others except the global elites in their academic and political ivory towers to slow lives of endless misery and poverty. (The elites in their UN and college ivory towers will of course, continue to live their lives of fossil-fueled luxury using their government grants and entitlements.)

        (By the way, if $25,000.00 in a one-time fee for research from a conservative think tank permanently contaminates a “scientist” whom you disagree with, how many government-paid “self-called scientists” can you buy for 92 billion dollars in grants and salaries and travel and computer time and staff and offices? )

      • I find caitiecaitie a hoot.

        So much ego driving so much pedantry and sophomoric pontification with nothing new in it at all.

        Unable to pick up the sarcasm in older wiser folks responses. Trying to pass as a wise one instead of a noob with a minor introduction under his belt. Projecting that condition onto others with many decades on him, and a few more degrees too.

        CC:

        A word of kindly advice. Do your homework on folks here before posting your condescension.

        Many of us have been involved here for many years ( pushing a decade?). Also you will find a generally mature crowd with lifetimes of professional experience. Oh, and many many technical and advanced degrees. Most of use just don’t flaunt it as it is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

        When you dole out high school chem and geography as wisdom, then don’t pick up on the sarcasm of someone calling you on it ( damning with faint praise), it just torments me to decide between laughing and crying…. there is a lot of quiet snickering going on now, at your expense, and in all honesty, I felt someone needed to let you know.

        You are welcome here, but a more respectful style with less condescension based on sand will help reduce your being perceived as just another student troll “comedy relief” with a class assignment from your Ecology Class to participate in a blog…

        ( A an asigment to my college classes, I too would let them do “projects” for credit that included some amount of ‘pretending’ in their toy ‘field research’, and your comments sure look like that to me.)

      • . . . just another student troll “comedy relief” with a class assignment from your Ecology Class to participate in a blog…

        ( A an asigment to my college classes, I too would let them do “projects” for credit that included some amount of ‘pretending’ in their toy ‘field research’, and your comments sure look like that to me.)

        Me too.

      • Hi EM, thanks for your post.

        “Also you will find a generally mature crowd with lifetimes of professional experience”
        that might be true, but Ive seen perhaps only one or two examples of anyone I would regard as “generally mature” – there is certainly a lot of vitriolic and angry, insulting posts. Less in the style of anyone generally mature, and more in the style of a school kid with a nose out of joint and an axe to grind.

        Anyhow…Im sure lots of people have advanced degrees. I’m glad they dont flaunt it – I dont know why that statement is relevant nor interesting – I actually dont care the qualifications of the person talking to me, if they have something interesting, relevant and defensible to say. I also dont care about the qualifications of the person if they are demonstrably a complete fool . In summary, qualifications dont matter. If you can back up what you say, super, if not. too bad.

        I “dole out” high school wisdom because it’s obviously lacking in some people. Basic stats also -and some people have asked me to give the details, so I do. I regard answering requests like that as basic curtesy, you regard answering specific requests as pushing an ego. I like my way more.

        Thanks for the welcome – are you the owner? I hope so or your welcome would come across otherwise as a kind of implicit declaration of something resembling ownership, or you wanting to mark your territory. That fine of course, I usually wash that kind of stuff off with a hose – but I notice you make pretty much anyone welcome – even those who repeatedly post some of the most prepubescent trolling I’ve ever seen – being called a drooling cretin was quite interesting – are people who engage in this kind of slinging also welcome here?

        I too, dont like ego. I see a heck of a lot of it. I try to steer clear generally, but sometimes it seems necessary . I know you understand, otherwise you wouldn’t have mentioned your self-acclaimed educational prowess in encouraging your college students to fetter and troll. But maybe that’s all just you being a hoot, I dont know. Does your ego play a role here?

      • thanks again RAcook.
        “No, that is explicitly NOT true. Global average temperatures are STAGNANT (steady, for those of you reading Rio Linda) ”

        I see, and within the scatter of the data, is that stagnation significant? if so – by how much?
        In any case, what you’Ve said here seems contrary to recent science.
        That is to say, you seem to be claiming that the science results from the past are valid, but those more recently, are not , please explain why you consider past measurements valid, and recent ones not.

        “Killing the global fossil fueled economy will deliberately KILL some 2.5 to 3.5 BILLION of innocents, condemning all others except the global elites in their academic and political ivory towers to slow lives of endless misery and poverty”

        True,Which is why I didn’t say we should kill it, I said we should dispense with it in the longer term.
        Removing the carbon economy in the short term will obviously generate chaos. The oil and coal lobbies are insidious, arrogant and pervasive – you can’t wipe your butt without petroleum being involved somewhere (more so for older folks, I suppose). But there is no reason we need to continue relying on it indefinitely, and there is no reason we can’t begin the move away from it, and into other industries, in the very short term.

        RAcook, I appreciate your replies, but I think you should actually read what I wrote, and not what you imagined I wrote. Having said that, I know I make typos and errors, and youre welcome to call me out on them. I hope you will, but misrepresenting what I say is not appropriate.

        As for your disparagement: “The elites in their UN and college ivory towers will of course, continue to live their lives of fossil-fueled luxury” – I’ll point out that most research scientists I know would hardly claim to being an “elite”, i sense some bitterness.

        To a large extent, people use fossil fuels because there simply isn’t a sufficiently easy or affordable alternative Indeed, in my country – when the alternative became momentarily accessible, it was pounced on by the public. Yes, they exist, no, they are not cheap, no, they are not straightforward. What will change that is public opinion, and public opinion won’t change as quickly while sites like this exist, to serve as a self-congratulation site for people with a lousy grasp of science and statistics, as well as those who like you, simply misrepresent what people have said.

        As for contaminating a research scientist from a conservative think tank.. I have no idea of the context you’re talking about – feel free to elaborate.

      • caitiecaitie:

        OK, you have convinced me: Harry Passfield was right when he suggested to me that you are a troll who is “either an AI robot, or multiple posters”.

        You dispute the ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ which is real and is discussed in the most recent IPCC report.

        Box 9.2 on page 769 of Chapter 9 of IPCC the AR5 Working Group 1 (i.e. the most recent IPCC so-called science report) is here and says

        Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Liebmann et al., 2010). However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.

        GMST trend is global mean surface temperature trend.

        A “hiatus” is a stop.

        And this from the IPCC that is tasked to provide information supportive of the AGW hypothesis.

        Take up your silly questions of the ‘pause’ with the IPCC if you actually believe them.

        Richard

      • hello richard.

        you go on with:
        “a haitus is a stop”

        yet, the text you refer to says:
        “that 15-year-long hiatus periods”
        That is to say, what is referred to as a “hiatus” is actually a period – i.e. it does not stop.

        When you read the words, it’s clear they are not describing a temporal departure as a full blown stop. It’s a period. an interval. a moment. A temporary reprieve.

        Its disappointing you didn’t achieve that inference, but If you object to them using the word “hiatus” to describe something they go on to describe as being periodic, then you are free to contact them. Or publish (using your own data of course..)

        “This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error. ”
        What that text means richard, is that the departure from the model – could be a manifestation of climate variability – that is again, a temporary departure from the trend. That’s fine, there have been departures before. It could also be that their data is simply wrong, or that the model is wrong too. But all of that goes without saying really – except for those who need it to be spelled out. It pretty much covers any eventuality.

        Its an occupational hazard I expect – noisy data leading to some conclusion which then later goes on to indicate the conclusion was completely wrong after all.

        But this is all moot.you’re trying to make out I disagree with the IPCC, but i daresay, you agree with them on this matter too – i.e. you’d assert the models are simply wrong – as they said.

        “OK, you have convinced me: Harry Passfield was right when he suggested to me that you are a troll who is “either an AI robot, or multiple posters”.”
        I’d encourage you to post that finding too – hopefully nature think it’s your data this time. There is data right? it’s not just unnecessary and irrelevant, angry speculation?

      • Troll posting as caitiecaitie.

        Now read the IPCC box I linked, cited and quoted for you and try to understand it.

        As a start see if you can discern the TWO definitions of the ‘hiatus’ it reports exists and discusses.

        Then acknowledge that the existence of those two types of ‘hiatus’ refutes two of your many fallacious assertions in this thread.

        When you have managed to do that, then make your fallacious assertions to the IPCC instead of bothering us with them.

        And I am still waiting for you to apologise to me for your unsolicited abusive insults and for your untrue assertion that I made “threats”.

        Richard

      • cc says:

        it’s okay to declare something to be incorrect of course. but you need more leverage – in the form of fact.

        Wrong, child. You still don’t understand how conjectures like ‘CO2 causes dangerous AGW’ (DAGW) work. Really, you don’t have a clue about the scientific method. Here, let me school you a little bit, because you desperately need it:

        Skeptics have nothing to prove.

        Got it?

        The onus is entirely on the side making the conjecture, or hypothesis (DAGW is no more than an unproven conjecture; an opinion):

        Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.

        As to the conjecture that C02 produced by human combustion of fossil fuels is causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the belief that there has been an alarming spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so.

        But the alarmist crowd has failed miserably. Not only has there been no spike in global T, but the rise in global T has stopped.

        So now the alarmist side lies about it, pretending what they until recently acknowledged as “the pause” didn’t happen at all, and that global warming is chugging along as always.

        cc, your side is lying. So now you’re trying to put scientific skeptics into the position of having to prove a neagative, when in reality the onus is on you to support your DAGW conjecture.

        You’ve failed badly. We have seen every argument you’ve tried to use here, ad nauseum. Really, you have no credible arguments, so you fall back on pal reviewed papers that disregard the fact that Planet Earth is making fools of your crowd.

  13. This map looks exactly like the map produced by Willis Eschenbach in the post “What’s Hot, What’s Not”.

  14. Bear in mind that a recent regime change in Canada means that an air head and dozens of his cronies are now in charge. Expect a multitude of this sort nonsense now that the trough has been extended exponentially and there are now no holds barred.

  15. It’s obvious the ‘Map’ is correct, heat rises.
    It’s just like tipping Brandy on a Christmas pud and unleashing a Lucifer upon it.

  16. So, does this mean that CO2 drifts to the top of the globe? If CO2 is relatively heavy, wouldn’t it sink to the bottom? It’s a miracle! Just like global warming. lol

  17. Well look at that – Gaia’s hair is on fire. Don’t know who created that image but it is right out of the handbook for hysterical extremists. It is hyperbole such as this that keeps the model-driven dream alive.

    • Gaia is suffering from meningitis,big Pharma needs to get in on the ‘Scam’ and propose dumping tons of antibiotics into the sea.

    • “The planet has a fever.”

      Al Gore

      (youtube)

      Aaaand, since the Climate Clowns are dragging out their tired old Flaming Ball of Fire act…. a fitting time to replay this old ditty:

      “Ball of Fire” (Paul Shanklin) — youtube

      Wow. Like, it’s 2007 all over again! Whee!

      In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions. ***
      Maslowski told members of the American Geophysical Union in 2007 that the Arctic’s summer ice could completely disappear within the decade. “If anything,” he said, “our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer… is already too conservative.”

      (Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013 )

  18. After I studied how cold it is in the Arctic, I would say that the warming is concentrating in the right place. After all, raising an average annual temperature from -22 degrees C to -20 degrees C in one hundred and thirty five years is a good thing, is it not? Of course, the snow still stays on the ground at least 11 months of the year, but their two week summer might extend into three weeks. Wow, should we not all die from this heat?

    • That depends on how significantly you regard the arctic as a kind of temperature regulator for the planet, and how much water you think is there.

      If you think it has no role to play in thermal exchange in the planet system, then your comment is correct, it won’t matter.

      However, it does play a huge role, therefore your comment is wrong. Ice can absorb a lot of heat and still be 0 degrees,… until it starts melting, and then the heat has to go elsewhere. Significantly, the arctic does not have a land mass to absorb more heat, but the antarctic does.

      • Please elaborate on the following, oh silly cc:

        1. “Ice can absorb a lot of heat and still be 0 degrees.” What is “a lot?’

        2. How do any of the above assertions by you prove the premise of the posted article: i.e. causation (of human CO2 emissions driving global temperature)?

        3. “the arctic as a kind of temperature regulator … it does play a huge role.” Explain (and show your work), please.

        Unless you want us all to think you are either crazy or drunk, please show your work, the equations and data (or other observations) that back up what you are muttering, here.

        LOL — you are FUNNY.

      • Considering that of the four inter-glacial periods preceding the Holocene, global temperatures were far higher than they are now, if 3-4 degrees C is considered significant, then we have quite a long way to go before our own global temperature becomes, “unprecedented,” and thus, “dangerous.” I am sure that physics worked the same way then as it does now.

      • Janice
        All materials have an intrinsic quality called latent heat, for materials that undergo a phase change, i.e. liquid to ice, or liquid to gas, or even solid to gas, these are called the latent heats of [melting/evaporation etc.]

        Ice has a latent heat of melting at 334 Jouls/kg. That means i kg of ice can absorb 334 joules before its temperature changes.

        If a cubic km of ice weighs something like 1000000000 kg, (i.e. 10^9 kg)This means that the ~7,500 km^3 of ice in the arctic would absorb something like 7.5×10^12 jouls before melting – of course, that assumes the heat is mixed evenly, which it is not, it is confined to the perimeter of the ice, because ice also has a lousy thermal opacity – i.e. its a good insulator, so layers deeper dont feel the heat.

        There you are, “a lot” is explained, along with my working.
        What I find most interesting janice, is that these concepts are taught in higschool in my country. It’s generally common knowledge for anyone who made it through year 12. I suppose you might have forgotten, but that’s no excuse for making claims that, with a bit of information under your belt, are easily shown to be at best ignorant, and at worst, completely absurd.

      • this is fun.
        i take avogadro’s number
        the molar mass for water
        the molar mass for CO2
        the specific heat of each
        the amount of each in a volume of average atmosphere
        and i find that water gas holds over 50,000 times the heat that the CO2 does.
        and it is also the lightest gas in the atmosphere, apart from the traces of helium and hydrogen… so it doesn’t
        need convection to rise…
        and when it condenses, without changing temperature at all, it dumps all that heat to space…
        so how does the nit on the hair of the tail wag this dog again?

      • Seeing that you have undervalued the latent heat by a factor of 1000 I’m wondering who exactly didn’t make it to year 12.

      • Geoff Shorten:
        you’re welcome to check my work
        i used 4% H2O and 500 ppm CO2 by volume (which is the same proportion as numbers of molecules, as you know)
        in a 1km cubic volume at STP
        (which means 22.7 liter/mole, as you know)
        one mole of H2O massing 18g and CO2 massing 44g/mole
        the latent heat of vaporization for water: 2264.76 kJ/kg
        the specific heat of CO2: 0.844 kJ/kg
        don’t forget to use kelvin (as you know)

      • gnomish,
        why are you still pushing this idea that the heat capacity of CO2 is matters?
        the role of CO2 is not it’s heat capacity, its the fact that it is opaque – or worse, reflective to infrared.

      • because CO2 never gets warm from heat – it refuses to do anything but radiate?
        because water is not a greenhouse gas and never collides with any CO2 molecules?
        because water never radiates nor absorbs infrared, so it has no influence at all?
        because I can see a cloud?
        truth is, like so many things anybody does- i have nothing better to do.

      • “or worse, reflective to infrared.”

        ROFLMAO.. the brain-washed ignorance is MANIC with this one..

        It obviously has ZERO idea of anything to do with radiative physics.

        so hilariously funny

        a new toy to play with :-)

      • caitiecaitie January 20, 2016 at 9:50 pm
        the role of CO2 is not it’s heat capacity, its the fact that it is opaque – or worse, reflective to infrared.

        Huh. Second time in this threat you’ve used that terminology. I asked upthread if you misspoke, I guess the answer is no?

      • Cait….Ice can absorb a lot of heat before it melts…….oh yeah, you must remember the giant mountain of ice amd snow that didnt melt in Boston until late summer last year…..
        be a dove…..what is the average temp of Boston in summer……why didnt the mountain of ice melt sooner after being 40+ degrees ABOVE FREEZING for over 5 months……why do you expect polar ice caps to melt under duress of much, much, much less heat than Bostonian summers…..

        b-b-b-but it is commons knowledge that a glass 90% full of ice will melt over the top of the glass (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

      • caitiecaitie January 21, 2016 at 7:09 am
        hello david,
        up post, I explained the context and meaning. you can refer back to it as often as you need.

        You’ll find my sincere reply, also upthread.

      • These “findings” most assuredly do not verify the model. They produce a picture of a simulation run. They verify nothing. They can verify nothing as the simulation they run is very far removed from the real world. It / they will only be verified when the projections already made start to tally with actual measurements.

        Back to higschool.

      • Phil.
        you’re having trouble figuring out the purpose of this paper.
        1. models describing various aspects of heat transfer around the planet, that are broadly consistent with the data are consulted, and an image is generated.

        now, the image is the product of the models – it’s what the models predict. The models are consistent with the data. The image is the result of the models – it IS the model.

        I’m sorry, I really dont understand why this is not clear. Could you identify which of the models used are 100% or even 65% junk, and explain why?
        Thanks.

      • oops, dbstealy.

        Did you read the article?
        I refer you to figures 3a and 4, which compare the measured CCR and that predicted by the models.

        So – the models I pick are the ones shown in the paper, which you clearly didn’t read, and which you probably need to, in order to actually talk about it.

        Let me know when you’ve accessed it and can talk about it. It’s a pay site, I’m sorry.

        Indeed, reality trumps – when you access reality, that is.

      • AndyG55 – To my shame I was indulging in repeating one of her earlier typos. Probably not fair to treat a high school kid that way.

        So… to indulge (I know – don’t feed etc.)

        caitiecaitie – You say “you’re having trouble figuring out the purpose of this paper”. Guilty as charged. I’m not even clear that it has a purpose.

        “models…that are broadly consistent with the data.” Only broadly consistent now? dbstealy at 8:16 showed very clearly how consistent they are. That’s a stretch even for “broadly”.

        If the image IS the model it cannot verify the model. The model can only be verified by comparing with actual measured results. Since the whole exercise is way outside the parameters of the real world it can not be verified.

        For the answer to your last question I invite you to look again at the diagram above provided by dbstealey.

      • hello again phil, I’m sorry, either I am being unclear, or you lack the wherewithal and intellectual honesty to parse what I’m saying. I can have another go. Put down your fork and concentrate.

        I’m often amused by the argument that amounts to “I have no idea what that is about, I didn’t even read it, but its’s wrong”.
        Phil, when you get the courage to read the paper, then – and only then- will you have the means to comment on its veracity. Until then your comments should be treated appropriately – as the pouting of a jilted dad with -as you admit, has little else to do other than gripe from a vacuum.

        Now, as I said to dbstealy – in small words – the data he shows are not the data from the paper. As I said to dbstealy, he’d do better to actually examine the figures therein, rather than concocting his own.

        phil, really – the data are IN the paper – and if you dont want to read it, I can’t help you. your arguments then degenerate into something consistent with a religious philosophy – that is – you asserting something to be true, even though you know nothing about it, and you simply WANT it to be true – I’m sorry, science does not work like that.

        I’ve looked again at the plot created by dbstealy – it has nothing whatsoever to do with the data in the paper. For your correct interpretation, I invite you to look for the first time, at the actual paper. Or at least, I would, but it’s clear you have no interest in a correct interpretation, what matters here is how petulantly you can stomp your foot – kudos to you phil, you’re obviously very experienced at being petulant.

      • cc sez:

        Now, as I said to dbstealey – in small words – the data he shows are not the data from the paper.

        That is a non-response to what I wrote. Your comments are filled with deflection, and as an insufferable little know-it-all you hide behind an anonymous screen name.

        You’re part of an alarmist cult that has been flat wrong in every scary prediction you’ve ever made. After many decades of searching by thousands of well paid, highly educated scientists using the best instruments available, and with the carrot of a Nobel Prize for the discovery, no one has ever been able to produce a verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of AGW out of all global warming from all sources, such as the planet’s natural recovery from the LIA. But you write as if dangerous AGW (DAGW) is a given. You’re winging it.

        You hide behind pal-reviewed papers, oblivious to the reams of evidence in the Climategate email dump proving beyond any doubt that the climate journal / peer revew system is hopelessly corrupted. The corrupt scientists that you admire so much are now on record as bragging that they control that system; and that they are ready to “re-define the peer review process” if anyone gets in their way. They discuss getting revenge on other scientists whose only ‘fault’ is that they have a different scientific point of view than the alarmist clique. And they’ve gotten scientists and editors fired for being skeptical of the alarmist narrative.

        You are just a young, ambitious crony of theirs with no more ethics than they exhibit. You showed up here on the internet’s BEST SCIENCE site, where numerous internationally esteemed climatologists, physicists, mathematicians, chemists, geologists, and many others in the hard sciences have been writing articles and commenting for many years. But you just dropped in yesterday to tell people who have forgotten more than you will ever learn about the subject that they are wrong, and you have all the answers because you’ve read some pal reviewed papers. FYI, child, the papers that fueled this bogus scare, over a harmless and beneficial trace gas, were written by Michael Mann. But the journal Nature was forced to publish a rare Corregendum admitting that Mann was wrong (they allowed Mann himself to write it, despite the thousands of submissions showing that Mann was wrong, so it’s a very self-serving correction.)

        So now the UN/IPCC can no longer publish Mann’s fabricated ‘Hockey Stick’ chart. And the IPCC LOVED Mann’s alarming chart! They would never have gotten rid of it in favor of the confusing spaghetti graphs they have to use in place of it. But Mann’s deceptive erasing of the MWP and the LIA was based on his cherry-picking of proxies and his ignorance and misuse of statistics, which forced the IPCC and Nature to back off. If Mann’s MBH97/98 claims were defensible, the IPCC would still be using Mann’s scary chart.

        Your same alarmist clique of scientists are still riding a long gravy train of grants, and they’re very careful to keep it on track. So they send lemmings like you in to run interference for them. Mann, Schmidt, and other alarmists used to publicly debate their climate scares. But no more. Why not? The reason is simple: the alarmist side lost every public debate! They were demolished by scientists skeptical of their climate scare because they’re trying to defend a failed conjecture that has no real world evidence: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with global temperatures. In fact, the past century and a half has been more benign and flat than anything found in the geologic record. Yet dishonest climate alarmists are still trying to argue that runaway global warming and climate catastrophe are right around the corner. You’ve been arguing that for deacades, but Planet Earth has been making fools of all of you: global warming stopped many years ago.

        So your side tucks tail and hides out from any fair, moderated public debates in a neutral forum, where the moderator is chosen by mutual agreement and each side is free to select their own debate team. You refuse to debate any more, because you’ve been made a laughingstock in all previous debates. Recently, when Gavin Schmidt was invited to simply discuss his “science” with Dr. Roy Spencer, Schmidt jumped up and skedaddled. Your side is like that across the board. But prove me wrong, if you can: set up a debate. I salivate at the resulting YouTube videos that will circulate the internet. But of course, you won’t because you can’t. They’re all hiding out, quivering in fear as they send in the junior varsity to run interference here.

        Wake me when you can produce a verifiable, testable, empirical measurement that quantifies the fraction of man-made global warming, out of the natural global warming that’s been observed since the LIA. Or is it your belief that human emissions cause all global warming? That wouldn’t surprise me, based on the nonsense you post. It would, however, probably require the use of thiotimiloine.

        The default situation is the climate Null Hypothesis — which has never been falsified. The Alternative Hypothesis is ‘Dangerous AGW’. But you cannot even quantify AGW, so you argue using a corrupted authority; your pal reviewed papers. That fails. You need to produce verifiable data, because science is all about data. Measurements are data, but you have no measurements of AGW.

        There are only two possibilities for that failure:

        Either AGW doesn’t exist (I think it does), or…

        AGW is simply too minuscule to measure.

        Since AGW is too tiny to measure, it is a complete non-problem, and wasting any more public funds on th DAGW hoax should stop, STAT.

        CC, you’ve got nothin’. Until you can produce verifiable evidence that supports your climate alarmism, you’re just trying to perpetuate the scam for your own self-serving ambition. I suggest you take your failed arguments to a more receptive audience like Hotwhopper or the neo-Nazi’s propaganda blog, ‘skepticalpseudoscience’. They just love the DAGW nonsense you try to peddle here.

      • Phil’s Dad:

        Please ignore the troll. Your constituents need your time and others can refute the troll so the troll does not mislead onlookers.

        Richard

      • hello dbstealy.

        Fascinating.
        you concoct a plot that has nothing to do with the paper
        you fail to read or even apparently access the paper…

        Then you launch into a persistent tirade lecturing me on matters like what you’ve described as a conspiracy to ignore research and data!

        “You hide behind pal-reviewed papers”
        okay dbstealy – yup, okay. I admit I access peer reviewed literature as a more reliable resource than faked plots on a blog. The reaosn I do this is that the ramifications of people faking plots is more significant. your fabrication will remain on this site for as long as it exists.

        dbstealy, there are enough published researchers posting here – why dont you ask them why they bother to attempt peer review?

        But okay, you’ve played the “its all a gosh darn conspiracy” card, faked your data, and then refused to read the literature. And topped it all off with a sour grapes lecture about how your faked plots are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

        Time to move on dbstealy. Next time, dont fake the plot. Next time, read the paper.

      • Thanks Richard, and you are quite right; but even I get an evening off sometimes.

        I shall make this the last but in fact I stopped posting on this tread when I realised we were dealing with more than one person (as have others).

        I suspect a student / teacher pairing. This makes it difficult for the student who (at this level) has to tell the teacher what they want to hear in order to get the marks.

        I wonder about the teacher though. Pure supposition but I suspect someone who feels their talents are not properly appreciated. Perhaps they feel they should be a tenured professor but no one else seems to see that.

        Duty calls.

  19. The Mercator cylindrical projection certainly makes it look far worse than we thought, which is probably the intention.

      • With a computer program it’s merely a matter of which library do you want to select to create the output display.
        Your willingness to accept actual dishonesty as long as it supports your religious beliefs is amazing.

  20. How come Antarctica is not warming due to increased CO2. CO2 apparently does NOT like the South Pole. Why?

    Because it is not warming at the South Pole (and these modelers knew they couldn’t get away with it because Antarctica is not warming – even the sea surface temperatures are cooling off as evidenced by the expanded sea ice around Antarctica).

    But the real question is why is Antarctica not warming? Because they have not got around to adjusting the temperatures up here yet. Antarctic temperatures are managed by the UK Met Office and are just quality controlled. Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt have not been able to muck around with these temperatures yet.

    Check out the Antarctic Peninsula temps (which the whole global warming community was gloating about for so long about how temperatures were rising here – the myth continues to persist with all global warming believers – they do not know what is really happening of course because they do not check any data sources – they just believe – the Peninsula has the same temperature in 2014 as in 1990, or 1975 or 1955 – 2015 temps were actually much colder than these times).

    How about the very South Pole. Zero warming happening here. And this station is staffed by up to 200 researchers in the summer and 50 in the winter so the NCDC does not get to just “adjust” the trends here which were recorded by people who are carrying out measurements at a high level of scientific accuracy and are actually risking their lives to do so.

    But someday, Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt will be trying to adjust even these temperatures.

    CO2 does NOT preferentially seek out the North Pole and do NOTHING at the South Pole. It is just a continuation of a fake science trying to fake up the records to keep the gravy train rolling.

    • Arctic does not have a land mass
      antarctic does.

      The thermal momenta are totally different. The question I have is – given they are totally different, why would anyone expect them to be the same?

      I’m directing my question to you Bill since you’re implicitly making that claim – considering the two systems are so utterly different, can you explain why you expect them to be the same?
      thanks.

      • Before Bill replies, he would be wise to ask you, cc, to describe in detail the “thermal momenta” of the Arctic and Antarctic and how they differ. How, indeed, are they “totally different?” You asserted this, so you must know… lol.

      • Just to be clear, are you saying an area with land mass (e.g Antarctic) should be expected to cool in response to CO2 increase, whereas an area without land (e.g. Artic) should be expected to heat in response to the same stimulus?

      • J. as I said above
        water and ice have a heat capacity (thermal momentum, the temperature change per joule energy input), it has latent heats of transformation (i.e. the energy input before temperature and state change occurs).
        Dirt/ mud, rock also have them.

        The are different.
        I ‘m sorry j. This aspect is FUNDAMENTAL to basic physics. if you dont know it, dont talk about it. If you want to talk about it, go find out about it. It’s unmitigated nonsense for you to be shouting from a vacuum, foot stomping, capitals and lols etc. do not lend your perspective any integrity, information does.

      • cc
        Who knew Canada’s NWT,Yukon and Nunavut. Greenland and Siberia are either not landmasses or not in the Arctic.
        You are a very weak troll.Surely you can bring a better game here.
        Fact free fretting your specialty?

      • “It’s unmitigated nonsense for you to be shouting from a vacuum”

        And you are doing a very good job at it, little caitie.

        Empty meaningless garbage seems to be your forte.

      • @C.C:

        http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html

        Specific heat of pure water 1.0
        Specific heat of ice 0.5
        Specific heat of granite 0.17

        There is a reason water is used for moving heat in engines and for thermal mass in solar homes.

        Your ‘porky’ about rocks (land) having more heat capacity than water is a real hoot, but quite wrong.

        Were it heat capacity keeping one from warming, it would be the one with the water staying cold…

        HINT: Look up the Southern Ocean and the way it isolates heat exchange.

        For extra credit, explore the implications of the sunny shallow Gulf of Mexico as relared to the Gulf Stream.

        As the old Oly commercials used to say “It’s the water, and a lot more”.

        (If you dont know what Oly is, that too will explain a lot…)

      • Cait…..did you know thay the wind moves ice on top of water…..how does that affectt ice mass in the arctic

      • Philsalmon.
        “thermal momentum or interia is as nonexistent as CAGW”
        Interesting, but says a lot about the education of people posting here.
        okay phil – I dare you to take a swig of hot coffee, just to prove your point.

        Marcus
        “thermal momentum is only relevant to high-energy particle studies”
        uh. no. The laws of thermodynamics apply to anything with temperature – i.e. everything.

      • Caitie,
        You forgot to include the most important points;
        1) the Antarctic land mass sticks very, very deep into the ocean
        2) land masses don’t move, water does.

        I didn’t understand it myself until I learned these things from you.

      • KTKT

        About thermal “momentum”, lets be clear – you were invited to withdraw your erroneous implication that heat somehow has momentum, ie that a mass which recently has increased in temperature due to heat input, will continue that temperature increase for a time after the heat input has ended. But you did not, instead making some comment about coffee.

        So you really believe in thermal momentum? Well you believe in AGW, so equally irrational belief in thermal momentum is not surprising, along with the neolithic creation fantasy about climate being created unchanging and perfect, only to be changed by humans.

    • bills, its not warming in the way YOU think because you’re not correctly accounting for the latent heat of melting by ice. With that information in hand, the plots you show are perfectly understandable.
      When you have a glass of ice, the surface temperature of the ice does not change, systematically from zero as the ice melts, until ALL the ice is melted – this is also shown in those plots.

      Physics is not a conspiracy bill. IT’s just how it works. Im not sure what gravy train you think is rolling. I know of no research scientists that are particularly wealthy – however I know plenty of oil barons who are.
      Put another way – there is significantly GREATER financial gain to be had in managing sites like this, than there is in doing climate change science. Were I an oil baron, I would probably be doing my darnedest to make claims like the ones I see here – with equivalent lack of basic understanding in an attempt to delude and misguide those who are angry, bitter and easily led – exactly what we see here.

      • KTKT

        Your tribe like to crow about “physics”. “We are the physicists, only we can understand climate”. This conceit is leading you astray. For one, despite all scientists’ natural loyalty to their speciality, climate is as much biology as it is physics. Lovelock’s daisyworld and Gaia hypothesis is probably largely correct. The biosphere’s response to increasing CO2 is as important as its effect on the emission height.

        Furthermore, the physics being applid to climate science is the wrong kind. It lacks the most important ingredient – the dynamics and patterns of chaos and nonlinearity. If physicists wish to be relevant to climate, they need to go back to school, and read up on Lorenz, Mandelbrot, Feigenbaum, Belousov/Zhabotinsky, Ruelle, and especially Prigogine and the discipline he founded of nonlinear thermodynamics. Only then might physics have something meaningful to say about climate.

    • Thanks EM, i appreciate youre desperate to one up me. thats fine.

      “Your ‘porky’ about rocks (land) having more heat capacity than water is a real hoot, but quite wrong”

      Yes, fair point, but actually I didn’t say that. Here is what I said.

      ” it has latent heats of transformation (i.e. the energy input before temperature and state change occurs).
      Dirt/ mud, rock also have them.
      They are different.”

      I can appreciate you simply made a mistake, that’s fine. I’m fully aware water has a substantial heat capacity, and why it is used to heat homes. Thanks for the redundant information.

      I’m sensing a pattern amongst the resident troglodytes.
      1. make claims along the lines of “bah!, I know better than all of them!”
      2. make some declarations preferably without recourse to even basic information
      3. litter the posts with prepubescent and, where possible and if appropriate, semi-misogyinistic comments
      4. round it all of with a healthy shower of indignant spittle.

      Above all – above ALL – anyone who disagrees with you, for any reason at all, must be demonised, crucified and belittled – and if the recipient of those quips comes back with any, they’re obviously angry and immature. Prepubescent language is the reserve only of the particular individual composing the post – anyone else making use of it is unauthorised and is therefore obviously a fool. XD

  21. I note they are using Mercator’s projection for their map – but I thought we climate-deniers were the flat-earthers!

  22. Author’s Martin Leduc, H. Damon Matthews & Ramón de Elían write:

    most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

    This isn’t supported by evidence presented. None of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Prove me wrong. You can’t. There is no evidence at all to support that statement, allegation, whatever you choose to call it. None. Not a jot or tiddle. Nothing. It’s unfounded. Nowhere is there any evidence at all.

    How this nonsense gets published in a once respected journal of science such as Nature is beyond be. I would guess that since it’s published under the heading of “Letters” it isn’t refereed. It turns out my guess is qualified; I happen to know for a fact those entries aren’t refereed, they’re pure speculation. I’ve published in that forum.

    The sad part is Nature can publish what they want as a result. It’s an editorial decision and has absolutely nothing to do with science.

    This isn’t science.

    • It certainly isn’t science. Furthermore, the once-upon-a-time prestigious journals have become rags unworthy of the attention of anyone seeking factual scientific information. They are now more akin to tawdry celebrity mags and perhaps one of the unlooked for yet serendipitous corollaries of the climate pseudoscience debacle is the ultimate demise of these grotesque parodies of previously quality publications and the rise of open access science publication.

      • the once-upon-a-time prestigious journals have become rags unworthy of the attention of anyone seeking factual scientific information

        I can’t begin to express how much this true observation troubles me. “Troubles” is the wrong word; it actually scares the piss out of me.

        We made a bad mistake with mass communications. It started with radio, progressed to television, and its bloomed with the Internet. We had no idea; I had no idea. If I had understood how this would work out, I wouldn’t have had anything to do with it. What I had been proud of shames me now.

        There are, and always will be, people in large numbers that have no time to devote to the subject of “climate change”; It’s no mark of insufficiency, just a truth. They are easily swayed by others who would, for their own reasons, take advantage of them and they have few defenses. They are good people who do their very best to make good decisions based on the information they’re given and they depend on the good will of the people who provide that information. They are more than smart enough to differentiate between good information and bad information if it’s presented to them, however if it isn’t even published, there’s no hope; they can be lied to and they will believe the lies. If you don’t even give them a chance to hear the opposing position, they have no choice.

        I had a part in this. I made the tools needed to lie on a very large scale and I have to repudiate it. The tools I personally made available have been misused and corrupted. It’s purely ironic that Al Gore himself was a sponsor of the “Smart Valley” project back in 1986 and has claimed to be the inventor of the internet. Now, perhaps, everyone understands why that was so important to him.

        This nonsense must stop. It’s an attack on democracy, and attack on personal intelligence, and an attack on freedom. It can’t be perpetrated under the guise of science. It’s a travesty that violates every precept of science.

    • It’s kind of a nice thing to slip in here Marcus because it’s a good demonstration of what does in fact constitute a reasonable standard of evidence in support of a hypothesis. In other words, the peculiar orbits of Sedna and other icy worldlets out of the ecliptic plane are difficult to explain without the presence of a previously unknown mass. It contrasts nicely with climate pseudoscience in which there is nothing whatsoever to differentiate the proposed hypothesis from natural variation and is forever and completely unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific at its very fundament.

      • Back in college, I took an astronomy course and while I can’t remember the exact content, I remember the book talking about the history of planetary discovery and calculations on Neptune and Uranus’ orbits showing that there should be a ninth massive planet. When they looked at about where they thought it should be, they found Pluto – but Pluto wasn’t massive enough to match what they were looking for.

        They were never able to find the “missing mass.”

        Not being an astronomer, is this a separate search or a continuation of the previous search after it was left cold for so many years?

  23. This map has proved it’s the “Simple High School Physics” mantra. We learn in high school that heat rises. According to this map, all the heat generated by bad humans rises to the north pole. This, in turn, forces the last remaining cool air to drop to the south pole because everyone knows in high school that cooler air sinks. This explains why the Arctic has been losing ice and the Antarctic has been gaining.

  24. “To date, humans have emitted almost 600 billion tonnes of carbon,” says Matthews. “This means that land areas on average have already warmed by 1.3°C because of these emissions. At current emission rates, we will have emitted enough CO¬2 [sic] to warm land areas by 2°C within 3 decades.”

    Mmmm … that is 0.7°C in thirty years, or 0.21°C per decade. I suppose they won’t use satellite data.

    w.

      • Come on Janice, you know very well that it was the Unicorn farts !! Stop trying to protect the Unicorns !! LOL

      • Extract from the article you link to.

        “Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere…Almost all model simulations show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models,”

        In fact, the rest of the paper repeatedly says the models may be wrong (but we prefer to think the data is wrong.)

        Either way I’m not seeing the models being validated here.

        Try again.

      • catie, I’m very interested in your estimation of the thermal moment of Antarctica, covered as it is by ice.

        But I really want to get to the heart of your argument, which is the radiative physics of CO2. You see, there is a very good reason the models overestimate warming, the ice cores and the benthic cores show co2 is the slave of temperature, and there is essentially zero correlation between co2 and temperature at Phanerozoic scale. The reason is that the effective atmospheric physics of co2 can only be found at quantum level. The irony is that the very reason you fear it so much, that it is a very “strong” earth spectrum absorber, is its downfall as an effective greenhouse gas.

        In the cartoon and table the excitation states of co2 are plotted against a modtran pre industrial co2 level transmittance to the tropopause. The first transition from ground state is usually the most energetic and that is the case for co2 shown here as the Boltzmann population density at wn667/15um. This central or “Q” portal accounts for half of co2’s radiative potential and it is squarely in the flat bottom of zero transmission at pre industrial level.

        “So what”, you say, “It’s still warming us.” True, but in these bands, no more so than it was before us.

      • hello gymnosperm.
        Thanks for your message.

        My interpretation of the process is that radiation from the sun penetrates the atmosphere at wavelengths where the atmosphere is transparent. Radiatively heating the ground, which then re-radiates the heat energy with a significant amount being re-radiated as IR.
        Therefore, the troposphere is subject to an IR flux, but emanating from terrestrial sources, not solar.
        So the opacity of the atmosphere is not important for the initial heating – energy arrives at different wavelengths. Havving arrived, it heats the earth, is re-radiated into the band where the CO2 can be easily excited, decay, and re-radiate isotropically – having a large optical depth of CO2 results in more of that radiation being re-emitted back downward to the surface with a relatively short relaxation time.

        You say: “no more than it was before us” – I have no way of determining the veracity of that statement from your plot, unless you’ve normalised it to current day levels – that is to say, you’ve normalised the plot so it will necessarily span from 0 to 1. I can’t tell if that is actually absolutely any different to post-industrial levels.

        If you dont mind, I’d also appreciate a citation or two.
        Thanks again.

    • Troll posting as caitiecaitie:

      You conclude a load of assertions addressed to gymnosperm by saying

      If you dont mind, I’d also appreciate a citation or two.
      Thanks again

      In future please find some citations to support your twaddle instead of asking others to try to find some for you.

      Richard

      • Certainly richard, which assertions would you like me to follow with citation?

        To be honest, I didn’t think there was much in my post that was controversial. The atmospheric opacity is easily measured, the emissivity of the earth surface is also easily measured.
        I think all of these are rather well established, so I assume I’ve missed something.

      • Thanks richard.
        For a guy who objects so strenuously to insult, you sure do engage in it a lot.

        Anyhow – I can try to cite my comments – but which would you like cited? To be honest I thought most of what I said was pretty much already and easily established, am I missing something.
        Thanks.

      • Troll posting as caitiecaitie:

        As I said, “In future please find some citations to support your twaddle instead of asking others to try to find some for you.”

        You asked for the citations so I don’t see why you are asking me what citations you want.

        However, as I always like to be helpful, I will say it would be good if you were to provide a citation for each assertion you make.

        Richard

  25. What 12 climate models did they use? I hope they didn’t use the global models which aren’t suited for regional studies.

  26. … says Matthews. “This approach can be used to show how much human emissions are to blame for local changes.”

    “…net {CO2} emitters and sinks over a full seasonal cycle…”

    (Source: Erik Swenson here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/#comment-2041884 )

    Wow. LOOK at all those people in northern Canada and above the Arctic circle! Must be at least 8 billion more people on this planet than we realized! Has anyone ever SEEN them? Call National Geographic!!

  27. So apparently they have hard coded into their climate simulation that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. Such computer models beg the question and are of no value what so ever. I read in a recent article that the original estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2, not including any feedbacks, are off by a factor of 20 too great. The feedbacks have to be negative for the Earth’s climate to have been as stable as it has been for more than the past 500 million years, enough for life to have evolved, enough for us to be here. The end result is that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really equal to zero so they need to rerun their simulations with the climate sensitivity of CO2 set to what it actually is , zero, and see what they get. Then there is the question of natural variability. It is not Man’ output of CO2 that has caused the ice age cycling or the warm period, cool period cycling over the Holocene. It is not Man’s output of CO2 that caused the Eemian to be warmer than the current interglacial period.

    So let us discuss the science involving man made global climate change. Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.

    The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

    Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

    The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

    The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that the same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with each interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.

    This is all a matter of science

    • If doubling CO2 ( to 700 ppm ) will cause Catastrophic Glo.Bull Warming then I guess the Earth was destroyed 10,000,000 years ago when CO2 was at 800 ppm…and we are really just a figment of our own imaginations !!

    • The earth’s climate has not been stable in the past 500 million years. What has happened shows signs that the climate has non-constant stability. The feedback figure is not constant, and seems to be more positive when snow/ice coverage is in a state where it has great upward/downward mobility in terms of millions of km^2 per year. That happens more when the earth is moderately covered by ice and snow (like during recent ice age glaciations), but the tropical zone and most near-tropics areas are warm.

    • As for mechanics of heat transfer in the troposphere:

      A CO2 molecule does collide with other molecules frequently, resulting in heat transfer by conduction over merely several namometers each time. Air is actually a notably good thermal insulator. And convection on any scale smaller than global circulation does not happen everywhere in the atmosphere, only in a minority of it. A fair amount of the world at any moment has no largely-vertical air movement at any altitude above the surface boundary layer, let alone enough to shift heat significantly up or down in the troposphere in any localized region.

      As for heat transfer by radiation: Greenhouse gas molecules do store energy that is transferred from one greenhouse gas molecule to another, or between a greenhouse gas molecule and either the surface or outer space. The storage time is short, but long in comparison to the amount of time it takes a photon of infrared to hop from one point to another in or below the atmosphere. More greenhouse gas molecules means the net heat transfer rate from the surface to outer space by LWIR radiation is reduced, as an increasing minority of this heat transfer is temporarily stored (locally in absorption sites even if for only microseconds) and/or turned back (re-emission of radiation by an absorber is in random directions regardless of the direction that an absorbed photon came from).

      This does not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics – they only require *net* flow to be from warmer to cooler (including to/from intermediate steps), and as they are stated they don’t say anything about rate of heat flow being affected by adding or removing an obstacle course.

      • In considering heat transfer through the air one has to consider both conduction and convection on a small scale. Yes, air is a good insulator in terms of just conduction but a poor insulator when convection is factored in. Insulation is designed to make use of air’s high conductive insulation but to prevent heat loss by convection. The gas molecules exchange heat when they make contact but them move around carrying the energy with them. If more CO2 did actually cause an increase in the insulation effects of the atmosphere then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The lapse rate is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases,

  28. What am I doing in the Bahamas where it is blue according to the map of climate change. I could be in Canada which is green. I need my head examined! It is a cool 68 F here in the Bahamas but it is a cooler 14 F where my house in Canada is. By the way, some of those hapless Newfies are here. They said it was much colder in Fort McMurray. They are right. It is 10 F there. This article is almost as much fun as the photo’s of Quebecers marching in the snow against climate change.

    • Hmmmm, do Americans and Brits even know what a Newfie is ?? I thought it was just a Canadian thing !! LOL

      • This one (American) does — now! Heh. I always used the term to refer to the gallant Newfoundland Dog. Now, I will be more careful… . I do know to pronounce Newfoundland with the emphasis (unexpectedly, to my ear) on LAND.

    • To shut up and march on is very German. I thought that some people in Quebec deemed themselves French.

  29. “…analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.”

    Where on earth, literally, would enough fossil fuels come from to quadruple the atmospheric concentration of CO2? The modelling assumption is ridiculous. Thus I ridicule it. Haven’t they ever hear of ‘Limits to Growth’?

    How do such puerile claims get into print? Are climate scientists such…what is the word? Misrepresenters seems inadequate.

  30. Canadian professors, how do you like the cut in pay you took with the drop in value of the Canadian dollar? Oil is not important?

    Fossil fuels have to be gotten rid of so they can be replaced with investments in renewable energy.

    • Fossil fuels are being gotten rid of, one tankful at a time. Sure hope they don’t find out the whole Canadian shield is underlain by more and more and more oil. That will really send the price down.

      If it happens that is the case the only fossils around will be the old guys claiming that oil is biotic in origin, and that natural gas isn’t.

  31. Wow.
    Where’d caitiecaitie suddenly come from? She’s mopping the floor with a lot of people. I haven’t seen someone this good since R. Gates. Brandon Gates (no relation) comes in a distant second.

  32. Funny how the projected warming is always where the instruments are not.
    However this fine work of art does demonstrate that imaginary heat rises to the imagined top of this spinning rock.
    But if CO2 done it, shouldn’t the heat be where the CO2 is concentrated ?
    NASA’s own satellite shows a poorly mixed gas.

    • Actually they do show it as well-mixed. But the visuals they put out make it seem like there is a large range in the differences. But in reality there is only a percentage or two difference in the entire range. I made the same mistake by looking at the colors only and not the axes.

      • I like to tell these twerps that as they sit in front of their computers in their padded basements, they are probably sitting in an environment that is 2000+ppm CO2. :-)

        No wonder they are so hot and sweaty and incoherent. ;-)

  33. This all shows how corrosive today’s polticized climate science is becoming. Utterly skill-less models are becoming regarded as gospel truth.

    Computer models cannot even get right – even come close to – mapping CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. How much less can they hope to map climate effects of CO2.

    12 blind leaders of the blind are no better than one. The end is the same.

  34. Regarding: “Globally, the researchers saw an average temperature increase of 1.7 ±0.4°C per trillion tonnes of carbon in CO2 emissions (TtC), which is consistent with reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

    Where does IPCC say that? IPCC knows that the effect of CO2, as it varies through anywhere in the range from as low as in recent Ice Age glaciations to as high as high side of foreseen by IPCC, is logarithmic. IPCC even favors a figure of 3.7 W/m^2 forcing from changing atmospheric CO2 concentration by a factor of 2 (3.7 W/m^2 per 2xCO2), which even Dr. Roy Spencer has gone along with in his website with mention that it is IPCC’s figure. This figure is obviously one of logarithmic effect, not linear effect.

    • Don, I had the “but CO2 is logarithmic” moment too, so I went back and parsed the language more closely. There’s a clever but of misdirection buried in the paper.

      1) They make the claim that temperature increases linearly, not with CO2 concentration, but with cumulative emissions, a rather different thing.
      2. The claim that this is “consistent” with the IPCC. Like you, I don’t recall the IPCC ever saying any such thing. Perhaps I missed it. But even if they didn’t, is the statement “inconsistent” with IPCC claims? I dunno, what I do know is that if it isn’t, showing that it isn’t would be quite a chore.
      3. They seem to propose that there has been about 1 degree of warming in the last century due to these “cumulative emissions” which would essentially be attributing ALL of the warming in the last century to CO2.

      There three things taken together make the paper rather difficult to debunk in a straight forward easily understood manner, and would require substantive detailed research. The notion that ALL the warming of the last century is 100% due to CO2 increases is clearly inconsistent with IPCC and other recent literature, so they’re off to a bad start on that alone.

      That said, when I read through it (once the linear thing was understood) there was not much revolutionary about it. SB Law and GHG theory have always suggested that cold places/seasons/nights would warm more than warm places/seasons/days and that the arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic (which was called out as early as APCC AR4 if not earlier).

      • 2. The claim that this is “consistent” with the IPCC. Like you, I don’t recall the IPCC ever saying any such thing. Perhaps I missed it.

        I missed it!
        IPCC AR5 Figure SPM.10
        http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_summary.php
        Roughly linear!

        That being the case, since cumulative emissions are accelerating, particularly during the last 20 years, the obvious question, if this is the case, why are temperature changes (even if one accepts Karl et al at face value) and proxies such as SLR not also accelerating?

      • The basic error with their claim is the assumption that emissions are cumulative, that is the extra CO2 stays in the atmosphere forever. Basic chemistry and biology shows this to be false. We know from studies that plants are sucking up the extra CO2 to the point that the greening of the planet is obvious in multiple studies. Every gardener of course knows this which is why horticulturists increase the CO2 level in their greenhouses.

      • “1. They make the claim that temperature increases linearly, not with CO2 concentration, but with cumulative emissions, a rather different thing.”

        That is not correct as I read it. Cumulative emissions means what, an increase in the total concentration. That is the same as linear with a cherry on top.

        First it only applies to a planet with an atmosphere with no water vapour (or used it doesn’t rain) and second, it ‘cumulative’ is a way of totting up the total concentration. The claim is trying to sell ‘cumulative’ as essentially different from ‘the net total that has not been lost to sinks’ which is the same as concentration.

  35. Whats amazing to me is these charlatans don’t quit. This has been going on since the 90’s. They have been working day and night to construct plausible con’s about global catastrophic warming but due to mans evil ways. Every bit of bogus research has been eventually exposed as false. This will be no different. I am just disgusted with these pseudoscientists. They are working to create the big foot of science, I assume to destroy the foothold of true science and the reasoning it fosters. I don’t know if these people are evil or actually deranged or have diseased brains. Someone please help me here. What ARE they.

      • And we have living proof in the current troll….. the mischaracterizations and intentionally misleading remarks = ev1l; only an unhealthy or deranged person would post as MUCH and for as LONG as this troll in defense of a piece of junk science. Who in their right mind would spend that much time and effort to argue FOR it? Unless… there is some money in it somewhere for cc.

        Also, read cc’s comments for their syntax and vocabulary…. often a bit “off.”

        [Usually best not to critic-eyes other writing errors or mistakes. Lest the next error be your own. 8<) .mod]

    • @ Peter and Paul: The science funding system is such that only proposals that present apocalyptic or sensational research are funded. Hence majority of scientists, since they need to feed themselves and the families, exaggerate. They are not pseudo- they are real and well educated, they just operate inside of a corrupt system. We all should actually dismantle it since it is unfixable. This will be greatest contribution to the scientific progress. By the way, did you notice morning headlines – all scientific world is abuzz!!! Two dudes from Caltech found 9th planet!!! Computationally… But it is real!!! This is an example of what I’m talking about.

  36. I don’t find this article of much interest. It is possible to show a strong correlation between craft beer sales and CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t care.

    I did find intriguing the post just yesterday by F.J. Shepherd regarding Norse Medieval Greenland and Historical Realities. Ötzi, also called the Ice Man, is also much more interesting and in need of an explanation than the (grotesque) map at the beginning. Do “climate scientists” not know about Polar Projections? Never mind, I know how these maps are made. But another interesting question: …
    Here is a WUWT link regarding a letter indicating the Arctic Region was warming in the early 1800s. Why did it do that?

    To the Royal Society – 1817 – warming Arctic

  37. Have to laugh, really. Any increase in temps that remain below freezing still won’t melt ice. And it always refreezes come winter in either hemisphere.

  38. Presumably physics is still universal so it would be good to hear these “scientists” explain how their conclusions allow Earth’s temperatures to surpass those of Venus long before CO2 levels get anywhere near the concentration levels found on that planet!

  39. The good news of this article is that the impact of incremental CO2 is negligible. The interpretation is wrong.
    The Antarctic with the lowest temperature on earth doesn’t show any uptic in temperature and it’s just there where the impact of CO2 should be noticed. The increase of temperature in the Arctic is mainly due to change in albedo and residual heat effects of the Northern Hemisphere.
    So nothing to worry about and the benefits are more greening and less heating costs in winter time.

  40. caitiecaitie wrote

    “Janice
    All materials have an intrinsic quality called latent heat, for materials that undergo a phase change, i.e. liquid to ice, or liquid to gas, or even solid to gas, these are called the latent heats of [melting/evaporation etc.]

    Ice has a latent heat of melting at 334 Jouls/kg. That means i kg of ice can absorb 334 joules before its temperature changes”

    *WRONG *

    The enthalpy of fusion also known as (latent) heat of fusion is the change in enthalpy resulting from heating a given quantity of a substance to change its state from a solid to a liquid. The temperature at which this occurs is the melting point. In the case of water applied heat will first raise the temperate of the ice to its melting point (0 deg C for pure water) then you have to supply additional heat to melt it.
    This means that AFTER you have raised the temperature of ice to its melting point you must supply an additional 334 joules per gram NOT kilogram to turn it into water

    This is because the liquid form of water has higher internal heat than the solid phase. It is this property that makes ice such an efficient cooler of drinks. Adding 10 grams of ice to a drink has a cooling effect that is enough to drop the temperature of 4 grams of water from 20 deg C to 0 deg C

    See
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/standard/physics/energy_matters/heat_in_the_home/revision/3/

    This is high school physics, in my case actually grammar school physics as we did this experiment at Acklam Hall Grammar school back in 1963.

  41. What has happened shows signs that the climate has non-constant stability. This is due to the earth’s climate has not been stable in the last 500 million years.

  42. I think the killer comment is:

    caitiecaitie January 20, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    These findings verify the model

    If averaging 12 unverified models gives you what you are looking for is called ‘verification’ then we are all truly doomed.

    Do climate research groups have any computing professionals in their teams?

  43. caitiecaitie:

    I write with sincere attempt to help you and perhaps some others who may be following this thread.

    It is clear that you are an inexperienced but well-meaning person who is trying to share your opinions and doing it with the usual blinkered arrogance of youth. For your sake, I write to suggest that you calm down and read the responses you have been getting.

    I make this suggestion because for some time I was enjoying seeing you failing to understand the drubbing you have been getting, but it is now clear you are ‘out of your depth’ and may get hurt.

    WUWT is a science blog and it won the award for the world’s best science blog outright. Many of those who post here are practicing or retired professional scientists. Hence, someone is regarded with amusement when e.g. offering the unsolicited information that phase changes of water involve latent heats. No ‘grandmother’ likes to be told ‘how to suck eggs’.

    It seems you have been misled by the ‘openness’ of WUWT which requires plain speaking and avoids using mathematics as a language. This enables anybody to interact on WUWT for mutual benefit.

    For example, Phil’s Dad has repeatedly commented on your posts. He is not a scientist but is a member of the UK government (i.e. a Conservative MP). So, a potentially influential person has been responding to you. I ask you to review his responses because they seem to imply he regards your posts with a mixture of amusement and disdain. Is that really how you want your views to be considered by an influential person?

    Please, stop posting for a while and consider the responses you have had before considering how you want to continue posting your views. Failure to do that could result in you obtaining the rightly harsh responses dealt out to trolls.

    I repeat, I write this as a sincere attempt to help you

    Richard

    • Wasted words, Richard. With so many nonsense comments from cc I gave up on the thread. Which I realised was partly the point of cc. So I decided to look at it differently: cc is either an AI robot, or multiple posters. I do not subscribe to the gender assignment default used by many here, I think that’s part of the scheme. There are indicators in language and synbtax use that supports my second theory: random capitalisation; odd sentence structure; and illogical errors (180 deg about) that are quickly accepted.
      We are dealing with a rather sophisticated ‘troll’ which I think is more than it seems.

      • I think your right Harry. I get the feeling that cc (et. al.) is writing a Lew type paper. At least Brandon posts under his real name.

      • Harry Passfield:

        Subsequent to your comment, I have become convinced that you are right. Thankyou for inducing me to recognise the reality.

        Richard

      • If you dont like it, demonise it.
        Why not hey?

        You can even go further and make a whole slew of random conjectures almost without any real reason to guide you, beyond the necessity of casting what you dont like in an unfavourable light.

        Harry – I’m perfectly happy for you to show exactly which is nonsense. A few people have, and that’s great. I even took it on board.

        But in the main, it seems people dont have much to say, other than “I dont like you so you suck”. Thats not how it works.

      • If it’s multiple posters, they are well disciplined. The writing style of the various posts is quite consistent.

      • I don’t recall ‘demonising’ cc: I merely pointed out that it is an androgynous construct that could be either a robot or a ‘person’ with multiple personalities.

        As a rather infrequent commenter on blogs I know the investment in time that is required to follow a thread and make an occasional comment: so far on this thread there are 326 references to cc; if only 80 of these are original comments then that poster has been inordinately busy and fully engaged – to the extent that it is either multiple personalities or, is professionally employed to disrupt a thread.

        Now, there is value in having someone like cc on a thread as it make sceptics think, develop their argument and debating skills, and review references. That said, the presence of such an insistent poster – on this thread alone (why none other?) – means to me that the post has hit a nerve and that the ‘paper’ (now known to be a ‘letter’) requires substantial (disruptive) support.

      • In my previous comment I referred to 326 occurrences of cc on this thread: silly me. It has a duplicate handle so the number will be half that as I only searched on half the name. However, there are 152 finds for the full name and 135 for half of it.

    • hi richard, While what you say might be true – it’s also true that there is a plethora of just outright ignorance being posted on this site some of which is simply misleading.

      Richard, I’m pretty sure I dont need to respect someone who makes comments like those phil has made. I also dont respect past presidents of the USA. I frankly dont care how the president of the USA views me, and if he wants to punish me somehow, for comments on a blog, then that probably won’t go very far to justifying respect. Last I checked, he spend quite some time with the diminutive and belittling comments. Sorry. He struck out.

      If you would like to assert I’m trolling – thats fine, but as was pointed out to me a few times, the parameters probably should be not only defined, but standardised.

      Now, in the context of trolling – and the threats you just dispensed to me – can you tell me how those kinds of threats might be applied to people who openly and rather aggressively insult another, on this site?

      Richard, what you’ve given me is a litany of threats, double standards. etc.
      Again, I’m all for people intelligently refuting what I post. Blogs, unpublished documents, refusal to even view the paper itself (and so many people here simply have not), do not amount to intellectual honesty. I’m sorry if you feel threatened by someone pointing out a failure of intellectual honesty, if you can come up with a better word for it, I’m all ears. The argument “i haven’t read the paper but it must be wrong, just cos” doesnt work.

      • Abusive troll posting as caitiecaitie:

        My reply to your untrue and abusive accusations has appeared in the wrong place.

        It is here.

        I again state my genuine anger at your egregious behaviour.

        Richard

    • oh, and richard. a few anecdotes I’ve recently learned is that wuwt encouraged its readers to vote for it to win best science blog. If that is true, the awards were not made based on any scientific credential, but was more a kind of “we have more readers than you” kind of basis, along with a stack of other climate “skeptic” blogs. It seems it has less to do with being science, and more to do with a place people can vent their spleen with other spleen-venters.

      It seems to me, an absolutely bizarre way of claiming to do science – a blog can say anything you want. That is not science. If you want to do science, why dont you use a journal? how do you expect any blog to be taken more seriously than, for example, the “we didn’t land on the moon” blog sites? simply waving around popularise and arguably stacked voting credentials does not make something validly scientific. Its absolutely strange to me that you even make the implication.

      Further, the scientific content of this site is certainly not widely highly regarded by scientists. In fact, it seems to be openly criticised by commentators and scientists alike.

      Again, these seem to be the facts. I’m happy if you want to refute them with additional facts. Youre also free to shut down people presenting dissenting views to yours, though I suspect if you do, you’ll have some of your own demons to wrestle with -for a few moments at least, then you can get back to pretending a popularise vote lends scientific credence to award recipients.

      • Abusive troll posting as caitiecaitie:

        I am not interested in assertions you have picked up from smear sites.

        I am still awaiting your apology for you having made untrue assertions that I made “threats” and for your unsolicited and untrue insults of me.

        Richard

      • Marcus January 21, 2016 at 9:07 am
        LOL, This coming from someone who believes ” MODELS ” are better than real life data !!!

        Its coming from someone who got the relative density of ice and water completely reversed, got the relative heat caapcities of water versus mud and rocks completely reversed, explained CO2’s radiative properties at approximately an “I took Al Gore’s seminar” level, and simply has no clue how badly she/he/it has destroyed their own credibility.

        All that is left is for her to accuse us of Dunning Kruger ;-)

      • It’s like BG has a sister! Only less rational and less polite. The most fun we ever have here is when someone comes along declaring how scientific and logical and superior they are in comparison to everyone here at WUWT, and then they immediately resort to unscientific terminology, logical fallacies, and inferior grammar skills, punctuation skills, observation skills, rhetorical skills, etc ad finitum.

        It cracks me up more than any other style of argument ever could. “Let me insult you in every way possible using the exact form of behavior that I am “projecting” upon you!” I suspect that these individuals are just suffering from their own cognitive biases.

        “A cognitive bias refers to a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion. Individuals create their own “subjective social reality” from their perception of the input. An individual’s construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behavior in the social world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.” (bold mine)

        Those bolded words pretty much describe every single thing caitiecaitie has said so far here, just in this one thread.

        So here’s a link to a list of cognitive biases. I suggest that everyone examine it and note which ones caitiecaitie uses in his/her replies from now on. He/she likes to examine data and facts, so let’s be sure he/she examines all that apply to him/her based on the evidence supplied to us by him/her.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

    • Ens Josh:

      You ask me
      Why did you pick caitiecaitie to tell him/her to “calm down” and “read the responses”.

    • Ens Josh:

      You ask me

      Why did you pick caitiecaitie to tell him/her to “calm down” and “read the responses”.

      Because that troll addressed its abuse, misrepresentations and falsehoods at me.

      I would say you are trying to defend the indefensible.

      Richard

    • Ens Josh,

      I’ve had a very few comments here moderated out for being overly offensive — like maybe three? Each time I noted that I thought what I dished was commensurate with what I’d been served, but agreed under protest to dial it back. Anthony’s blog, Anthony’s discretion — or that of his designated moderators.

      The balance of my time here I don’t mind so much that the refs don’t blow the whistle against the home team very often because, if you think about it, that means they don’t have to be as motivated to play the ball.

  44. Three Mile Island: How many people died from the accident, 00000. Brockovich on the case in Flint ie Water.

  45. Shouldn’t this be from the “we can make a model to fit any global warming outcome we wish” department?

  46. Gosh, … temperature caused by CO2 emissions … 1/20/2016

    Earth’s temperature has increased by 1°C over the past century, and most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Bold added.

    They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions. Bold added.

    Surely Matthews and Leduc wouldn’t rely on correlation implying causation. So how did they know that CO2 caused warming instead of warming releasing CO2?

    Aha!:

    … results of simulations …

    Now, how did their simulations know that CO2 leads, not lags, warming

    • They have models of their models that prove their models are correct !! Ask any model, they know !! LOL

      • Marcus, 1/21/16 @ 6:04 am, said,

        They have models of their models that prove their models are correct!!

        That’s no joke:

        A number of ambitious and comprehensive ‘model intercomparison projects’(MIPs) were set up in the 1990s under the auspices of the World Climate Research Programme to undertake controlled conditions for model evaluation. One of the first was the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), which studied atmospheric GCMs. The development of coupled models induced the development of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), which studied coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs and their response to idealised forcings, such as a 1% yearly increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. It proved important in carrying out the various MIPs to standardize the model forcing parameters and the model output … .[¶] The establishment of the AMIP and CMIP projects opened a new era for climate modelling, setting standards of quality control, providing organisational continuity and ensuring that results are generally reproducible. Bold added, IPCC, AR4, ¶1.5.3 Coupled Models: Evolution, Use, Assessment, p. 118.

        AGW is real because all the models agree.

  47. We’ve been told time and again that the GCMs don’t resolve to anything less than a global scale. That is the fact that they can’t be used to predict regional changes can’t be held against them.
    Now we find out that even though the models are useless to resolve regional changes, you can nonetheless, use them to find out how individual cities have changed.

    Do these morons even bother to talk to each other?

  48. Does anyone know what cattiecattie does for a living? Whatever it is, it doesn’t involve actually showing up for work.

  49. “Arctic is cooling since the AM switched”

    “You do know what the AMO is , don’t you , ditz?”

    I do have to say that folks use a lot of acronyms around here and don’t spell ’em out first. Drives me crazy. For instance, with reference to the two quotes above, is the “AM” the same thing as the “AMO”?

    Please science folks, spell out your acronyms. You might know exactly what yer talkin’ about, but a lot of other people don’t. Or maybe it’s just me. Either way, it’s only a few extra keystrokes.

    Thanks in advance.

  50. SIMULATION from 12 Models! When over 150 “Models” have already been proven to be so much BS, I am curious as to which 12 these Imbeciles chose to use. Additionally, they are right in line with the Morons who claim the Arctic is Ice Free today, while Ice Breakers are having increasingly difficult times keeping the shipping lanes open.

      • caitiecaitie on January 21, 2016 at 9:05 am

        – – – – – – –

        caitiecaitie,

        ‘Nature’ called it a letter not a paper, so maybe you did not read it because you thought it was a ‘Nature’ paper.

        John

      • It’s in the paper, so it must be true.
        Unless it’s something that goes against religion, in which case it’s caused by all those super rich oil barons who live in the Gulf.

  51. Below is the flawed logic of Nature Climate Change | Letter ‘Regional estimates of the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions’ by Martin Leduc, H. Damon Matthews, & Ramón de Elía.

    Take an ensemble of GCMs which run hot and do not reflect actual temp data, use the hindcast of the models matched to past temps the posit that most of warming must be CO2.

    Which reminds me of deja vue all over again.

    John

    • Here is an edit of my above comment:

      – – – – – – – –

      John Whitman on January 21, 2016 at 7:39 am

      Below is the flawed logic of Nature Climate Change | Letter ‘Regional estimates of the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions’ by Martin Leduc, H. Damon Matthews, & Ramón de Elía.

      Take an ensemble of GCMs which run hot and do not reflect actual temp data, use the hindcast of the models matched to past temps the then posit that most of warming must be CO2.

      Which reminds me of deja vue all over again.

      John

      • Moderator,

        My comment to DCA a few minutes ago probably went into the WP nether regions. I may have submitted it twice, both are identical. Can you retrieve one of my comments?

        John

        [Done. -mod]

      • DCA on January 21, 2016 at 10:14 am

        John,

        What is the difference in a “letter’ vs “paper?

        Thanks in advance

        DCA,

        ‘Nature’ called the publication a ‘letter’. Obviously ‘Nature’ distinguishes between something it publishes as a ‘letter’ and something it publishes as a ‘paper’.

        If you are interested in what ‘Nature’ considers the difference in a published ‘Nature’ ‘letter’ versus a published ‘Nature’ ‘paper’ then ask ‘Nature’ to distinguish what they mean by the two different terms.

        My point to caitiecaitie was that she (he/them/it**) may not have read it if she (he/them/it**) thinks it is a ‘Nature’ ‘paper’. She (he/them/it**) has not responded.

        ** by referring to caitiecaitie as “she (he/them/it)” I intend no insult but rather I mean anonymous commenters are not self-identified as to whether male or female or a collective of people or partly a semi-automated search response algorithm.

        John

  52. “Using simulation results from 12 global climate models”…….”analyzed the results of simulations”

    C’mon man! Go back to playing Zork and leave the real research to real scientists.

  53. “what you wrote is irrelevant,.ignores valid and demonstrably appropriate precedent etc. but most of all, I suspect it is just different to what you want to be true.
    Wanting something to be true richard, need not correlate with what is, in fact, true.”
    cc wrote this upthread
    projection, much?
    (sorry to abuse your good name with the reference rsc)

    I’m still waiting for the cc troll to produce even one IPCC global climate change projection model that has been validated in the real world using observed data, like I asked for hours ago.
    They can’t, because there isn’t one (much less, 12).
    Watching them shifting goal posts and blowing smoke when just about every claim they have made has been refuted with real world data, and trying to have people guess where the validation pea is under the constantly moving walnut shell of their ignorance is quite entertaining.
    However, it does nothing to demonstrate that the subject letter and map have any scientific credibility whatsoever,(except possibly to demonstrate what really bad scientific modeling looks like).

  54. caitiecaitie:
    Welcome to the alternative universe.
    Indeed you are correct – the only in insults have come from others towards you, whilst you have been commendably restrained in response – especially considering the beyond patronising “warning” from courtney merely for posting science they don’t agree with.
    But don’t you see? they don’t tolerate “warmist” views (for too long), and if you persist, as you have WITHOUT resorting to ad hominem, then they will either goad you into it or just plain accuse you anyway.
    Been there and got the T-shirt and observed how they treat the likes of Mosher, twinotter and Brandon, amongst others.

    Denizens – you could have a pure echo-chamber here, but what’s the point?

    BTW: A Troll (wiki) is ….

    “.. is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement”

    None of the above applies to caitiecaitie.

    • ToneB:

      Your unsolicited support for the troll posting as caitiecaitie is noted.

      I still await the apologies warranted from caitiecaitie for the untrue assertion that I made “threats” and for the unsolicited abuse and insults gthat troll directed at me.

      An apology from you for pretending the falsehood that the troll is a ‘victim’ would also not come amiss.

      Richard

    • Toneb:

      My repudiation of your support for the troll has vanished and I suppose it is in the mod ‘bin’.

      I add that you rightly say

      A Troll (wiki) is ….

      “.. is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement”

      then you falsely assert

      None of the above applies to caitiecaitie.

      That is absolutely untrue! See above.

      I still await the apology from the troll.

      Richard

    • Mods:

      I have provided two rebuttals of the post from Toneb but they have both vanished.

      I would be grateful if you would let me know if they are not found when you check the ‘bin’ so I know to send a replacement.

      Thanking you in anticipation.

      Richard

      • Brandon Gates:

        Before supporting egregious trolls on this thread, it would be appropriate if you were to acknowledge your multiple errors on the ‘Monday mirth … thread’.

        Richard

      • Oh sweetie.

        BG-“As for me “supporting egregious trolls” on this thread, I hold that providing topical, relevant counterpoint which others apparently find disruptive to their own beliefs is not trolling.”

        It’s so sad….and yet hilarious at the same time…that those people who are afflicted with cognitive biases are the last people to know they are afflicted. People with CB reveal them all the time, in their words, in their actions, the way they communicate with others. It’s like hearing an accent and knowing immediately where that person came from. The very axioms, idioms, quotes, and lingo used by people with CB can be used to identify the type of CB they suffer from. They give us clues to the “roots” of your thinking. You try to hide it and it only makes it worse.

        You expose yourself all the time. What cc and Toneb offered here are not relevant counterpoints that others here “apparently find disruptive to their own beliefs”. YOU think that because you suffer from cognitive biases that allow YOU to believe that you have some magical ability to know what others are thinking AND what motivates them to respond to others. You don’t. No one does. And what is disruptive here is people like you coming in with your flawed thinking and irrational responses…it’s shocking, and amazing, and disturbing here because it happens so very RARELY. And when you, and cc, and toneb persist in it, it goes from being a cultural shock to most people here, to being an outrage because it is so obviously insane for anyone to think like you do, that your persistence in it MUST be voluntary and MEANT to disrupt.

        And normal, rational people get angry when people WANT to disrupt and cause contention just for the sake of contention alone.

      • Brandon Gates:

        That was naughty!
        You linked to where you presented a blatantly erroneous graph, but nobody is going to read the reams of irrelevant twaddle that you posted to try to evade admitting that you posted the blatantly erroneous graph.

        This is the link to where that debate has reached.

        And that is only one of the subthreads in the ‘Monday Mirth …’ debate where you have yet to admit your error. As Aphan said of you in one of those other subthreads

        Does anyone here even know what point he’s trying to make? I’m too lazy to read his novels to find out.
        But he usually makes some assumption about someone here, and then tries to prove that person’s imaginary point of view is flawed. He seems think he’s making some kind of obvious point here, and it appears he’s assumed that whomever he is addressing will object to that point/disagree with him.

        He’s just a rambling pain in the rear end.

        Richard

    • Ens Josh,

      The site Policy here is used as a guideline, not a law. Anthony makes all the final decisions. But I note that “CC” is heavily thread-bombing, which is one of the things that site Policy does not allow. Yet she is free to continue, at Anthony’s pleasure. If you want to argue with success, feel free. Or, you can start your own site and run it your way.

      WUWT has become the most popular, most heavily trafficked site on climate issues. Its internet traffic is far more than all alarmist blogs combined. One reason for this is Anthony’s free speech policy. That policy is not absolute; when someone steps out of line too often, they can get a time-out or worse. If you haven’t seen that, you’re new here. Moderators routinely *snip* or *delete* words or comments.

      Conversely, most alarmist blogs heavily censor the comments of skeptics. That makes them propaganda blogs; they do not want to allow their readers to see all points of view. Here, all points of view are encouraged. Readers can then make up their own minds based on the maximum information.

      The result is easy to see: most readers end up being skeptical of the ‘man-made global warming’ scare. Certainly the impartial ones can see that there is, at best, flimsy evidence supporting the alarmist narrative. If it were not for the immense piles of money propping up the ‘dangerous AGW’ alarm, it would have dissipated long ago. There is just no good evidence showing any global damage or harm from the rise in CO2, which has anyway only risen just one part in ten thousand — over more than a century. That is hardly a cause for alarm, especially since no one has been able to show any harm resulting. In fact the rise in CO2 is a net benefit, increasing agricultural productivity and ‘greening’ the planet. For the one-third of humanity that subsists on less than $2 a day, the lower food prices are a matter of life and death in many cases.

      A lot of the frustration you see is directly due to the unfairness of taxpayer loot flowing into the pockets of individuals and organizations that promote the dangerous AGW hoax. Skeptical scientists are largely cut out. The scare is being used to pass a carbon tax — which would further confiscate the income of taxpayers who don’t believe a word of it.

      Put yourself in the shoes of skeptics. Let’s say that the scare was instead about Scientology, and that proponents were being paid huge piles of public grant money to promote their Scientiology scare. Their goal would be to get Scientology taxes passed, which you would be forced to pay even though you know it’s a trumped-up false alarm, and there’s no good evidence that Scientology is credible.

      What would you do? Turn the other cheek? Play kissy-face with the self-serving Scientology scamsters? Or would you tell them how you really feet about their hoax?

    • Toneb says wrt trolling “none of the above applies to ” cc. Really?

      I haven’t done any insulting, merely pointed out that their off-topic false analogy to crash test simulation modeling was flawed because even the simulation models of crash tests require criteria for scientific validation of the models, yet they claimed “noone would bother to question the validity of that simulated result.”, (apparently including both themselves and you in the term ‘noone’ (sic) ).

      This suggests that understanding of both the value and the concept of”validation of scientific simulation models” are not among the strengths evident in the claimant’s purported knowledge of the SM and how the SM actually works, however many hairs on a rat’s hindquarters they may skillfully split.

      If you indeed concur with the claim, I have access to a Corvair, a Pinto, and a Gremlin that I am happy to sell to both you and the claimant for your own kids to use at some distant time in the future (after I’m not around any more, I hope). The paint jobs are really shiny, in custom color palettes , with awesome sound systems, GPS, and–wait for it– new very expensive tires!!!

      Since you appear keen to engage in the discussion,on the claimant’s behalf, you may be able to provide us with a link to at least one (preferably 12) IPCC global climate projection simulation model that has been validated by real-world data, that the claimant appears so far unable to provide.

      Global climate simulation model projections are what the topic is. They have been falsified by real-world data. Any further models based on them , like the one in the topic paper, cannot yield anything except spurious results. That is the science as it stands. Period.
      Putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t change the fact that it is a pig, and there isn’t enough lipstick in the world to make it anything different.
      So yes, what is your point?

      In this analogy the rat is the scientific simulation model that requires no validation in order to be accepted as ‘credible’ by either yourself or the claimant.
      Splitting hairs on a rat’s hindquarters has been known to backfire with tragic consequences when one does not pay any attention at all to what the rat itself is doing , or even ensuring it is indeed a rat that one is splitting hindquarter hairs on. The intelligent and agile rat has been known to turn around, bite the hand of the hair-splitter, run up the hair-splitter’s arm and make it’s nest in the hair-splitter’s own hair , ultrasonically calling out to its rat relations for assistance, and all the while infesting the hair-splitter with plague, or at least fleas. If the non-validated “rat ” turns out to be a weasel and not a rat at all, the hair -splitter may simply have their face ripped off.

      Can you see how validation of scientific simulation models when real world observational data is available might be equally as , if not more, important than the skill to split hairs? If not, let me know where to deliver the cars.

      It is difficult for me to become concerned at claims of global anthropogenic “climate change’ or “warming” or “warmest year ever” ,due to some specious correlation with CO2, as mapped in the topic letter, on the order of 100ths or even 10ths of a degree over decades when the temperature on my own doorstep can fluctuate by as much as 100 degrees F in any given year-yet with a little forethought and minimal disruption or expense, I and virtually everything around me is not only surviving, but thriving.

    • You, ToneB, did read cc’s comments. Right?
      Troll 1 in support of troll 2, sure I will take your anonymous word for it.
      Or I could trust my lying eyes and reading comprehension.

      • There is a small but significant thread of valid criticism in “Toneb on January 21, 2016 at 11:09 am” about significant lapses of civility on some WUWT threads.

        We should emulate Dr Richard Lindzen’s, Steven McIntyre’s and the late Dr Robert Carter’s wonderful civility and patient forbearance on dialogs with those who we profoundly disagree intellectually. We owe that kind of behavior to Anthony who works so hard at this wonderful venue of his.

        John

  55. This thread is extremely long now (I’ve read longer – and more interesting ones at WUWT) but I wanted my comment up-thread to be more easily found (hubristic apologies for that):

    I don’t recall ‘demonising’ cc: I merely pointed out that it is an androgynous construct that could be either a robot or a ‘person’ with multiple personalities.

    As a rather infrequent commenter on blogs I know the investment in time that is required to follow a thread and make an occasional comment: so far on this thread there are 326 references to cc; if only 80 of these are original comments then that poster has been inordinately busy and fully engaged – to the extent that it is either multiple personalities or, is professionally employed to disrupt a thread.

    Now, there is value in having someone like cc on a thread as it make sceptics think, develop their argument and debating skills, and review references. That said, the presence of such an insistent poster – on this thread alone (why none other?) – means to me that the post has hit a nerve and that the ‘paper’ (now known to be a ‘letter’) requires substantial (disruptive) support.

    (erratum)

    In my previous comment I referred to 326 occurrences of cc on this thread: silly me. It has a duplicate handle so the number will be half that as I only searched on half the name. However, there are 152 finds for the full name and 135 for half of it.

  56. As only an interested lay person who enjoys science strictly as an amateur – amateur astronomy, physics, biology, botany, geology, etc. – I still have never seen a clear and cogent explanation as to how catastrophic heating will occur because CO2 has increased in our atmosphere from maybe 1 molecule in 3000 to now 1 molecule in 2500 (400 ppm). How does it – how can it – have such a big effect? What is the actual mechanism, just absorption and near-immediate re-radiation in the IR? Why has there been such a small observed effect of perhaps 1 degree C in 150 years if it is so potent? How is it that the “blame” for this can be assigned to Man when there have been upswings and downswings in both temperature and CO2 concentration long before Man appeared on the scene and began to contribute significant CO2, and the climate is always changing in cycles we don’t completely understand because of natural processes?

    If the “science is settled” why do they rely on computer models none of which agree except they all overstate warming, instead of observations and experiments? Inquiring minds want to know. Inquiring minds should be skeptical, shouldn’t they? Or am I expected to accept it all blindly, to swallow it whole?

    Or am I going to be told (by some) it’s just too complicated for me to understand, just keep paying for the endless studies (even though if the “science is settled” we shouldn’t need more studies)?

    • The only answer you’ll get from the ” Catastrophic Glo.Bull Warming ” crowd like cc is that the models tell them it’s true, so reality is lying !! Hope that helps…

  57. Harry Passfield said that ‘cc’…

    …is either multiple personalities or, is professionally employed to disrupt a thread.

    As often happens with thread-bombers like that, CC posts non-stop 24/7, throughout the work- or school-day. But she has convinced no one at this BEST SCIENCE site (which has far more traffic than all alarmist blogs combined).

    ‘CC’ argues with everyone, a la B. Gates; nitpicking, re-framing arguments, erecting strawmen and then knocking down her strawmen, deflecting, and otherwise avoiding the central point:

    The climate alarmist crowd was wrong. They made the central prediction that a rise in CO2 would cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

    But Planet Earth has other ideas, and she is busy falsifying the alarmist crowd’s scary predictions. When proponents of a conjecture are proven wrong, repeatedly, and none of their alarming predictions ever come true, rational folks will begin to wonder about their unstated motives.

    Honest scientists are wrong routinely. When they find that their conjecture or hypothesis is wrong, they go back and try to understand why.

    But not climate alarmists. Instead, they double down like CC, and argue incessantly. Everyone here can see that the real world simlpy disagrees with their failed conjecture. So, how do we know the alarmists’ conjecture is wrong?

    Here is how: one characteristic common to every Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, and Law is that they are all able to make repeated, accurate predictions. If they can’t then their conjecture is falsified.

    But as we see, not one scary prediction of the climate alarmist contingent has ever come true. They were all wrong. No exceptions.

    The only honest kind of scientist is a skeptical scientist. But climate alarmist scientists have zero skepticism — they insist that they’re right, that their models are right, and that the data must be wrong, or it must be ‘adjusted’ to match their models. By then it’s no longer data.

    The conclusion about unskeptical alarmists is obvious to even the most casual observer:

    The truth is not in them.

  58. I look at the red colors as multi sigma “error” bars for warming side because: 1) adjustments favor going warmer in the present and cooler in the past getting the maximum upslope that can decently be concocted (decently is losing out as we go along) 2) Among data sets and proxies there are differences and the researcher of a warming bent, tends to rationalize choosing the warmest one – after the tomkarlezing of the pause, the competing HadCrut just added on the new slab of heat to there data set as did GISS. 3) error bars themselves are skewed to warming – as climate sensitivity became more constrained on the upper side and IPCC had to grudgingly reduce the lower figure, they left the upper figure of 4.5 where it has always been to rescue the models in the future.

    The satellite temperatures were a major headache to the (already failed) theory, not only because they showed the pause, but even more so because they constrained the freedom of the adjusters to push the ‘present’ end of the record upwards and this gave way to what I call figuratively the thumbtack method of sticking a pin in the graph at about 1945 and rotating counter clockwise to steepen the curve and deep six the real temperature records of the 1930s-early 40s (they did this in 1998 under Hansen’s direction because the hope for the 1998 El Nino to lead us into a new high wasn’t able to do it and he knew an La Nina was likely to follow and the team just couldn’t have the 60yr old records stand).

    This first major adjustment to temperature (by a fellow who shut down the air conditioning in Congress and closed all the windows to make the chamber hot for his alarming speech in 1988) was made on the last day of warming for the next 18+years. The bloody pause began! Now the satellite data is even more a pain. That is why THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DO THE SATELLITES IN!! Are people getting this? Even Christopher Monckton didn’t seem to get that in his review of the 10 minute video discussion. They threw out the argo floats – 4000 precision instruments on the ocean – for old fashioned ship engine room water intake temperatures because they showed what they wanted to show. I would alert Lamar Smith that this is what is going to happen.

    • They do not want actual data..They want perceived / hoped for data !! The real world means nothing to liberal socialists !!,

  59. Egad!! Another Mercator climate heat map that sets the whole top of the world on fire. Someone inflated Greenland again and wiped Antarctica all over the windshield like a bug. Curious to see what it would look like as a Dymaxion.

    Much better! Looks refreshingly cooler (on pix-average) un-distrorted. Reference image,

    h/t to perl and Geo::Dymaxion

  60. Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
    Please note this important information from comment below But, since the middle of 2005 (that would be slightly over 10 years), the arctic sea ice area anomaly has been oscillating steadily at right around -1.0 million sq kilometers. So, whatever 70 year cycle or natural change or polar bear shitte piles caused it to “change” from its 1979-1990 average of +1.0 Mkm^2 to -1.0 Mkm^2, the effect has NOT done ANYTHING to further melt arctic sea ice since 2005. In fact for almost all of the past 18 months, arctic sea ice area has been hovering right at the -2 std deviation levels all the time. Not increasing to be sure, but not decreasing either.True facts presented in comments of “Gosh a new model based study puts temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions on the map, Wattsup with that 2016/01/20 Have all the money gone to find a model supporting CO2-believers beliefs….. ?????

    • Dear Norah,

      Not expecting a reply, just want you to know that I have kept you and your mother in my prayers for this past year and a half (or so). I hope that, even if all is not happy, all is peaceful and that she is doing okay.

      Take care — and remember to do nice things for Norah! (she is very special),

      Janice

      P.S. I must say, again!, that your dad would be SO PROUD (and, likely IS (smile)) of you for continuing the excellence-in-science tradition of your family.

  61. Leduc and Matthews, along with co-author Ramo?n [sic] de Eli?a [sic] from Ouranos, a Montreal-based consortium on regional climatology, analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.
    But with all the “hoopla” regarding CatieCatie and others that have taken over more than half of this tread,
    Have any of you seen the the name:
    “Ouranos” in the article ( Say it really quick).

  62. Well! That thread kept me up way past my bedtime… as for CC.. “Methinks the lady doth profess too much!” Thanks to all contributors for your erudition, my education and the entertainment!

  63. Re: willhaas 1/21/16 @ 2:05 pm said

    The climate has been stable enough for life to evolve.

    Yes. And just unstable enough for man to invent shelter and clothing. And slightly more unstable enough for life to evolve the robustness necessary to survive. And more unstable enough for animals to develop seasonal migration and the skill to hunt under the ice. And further unstable enough for grazing animals to grow large enough to migrate between continents, and in turn their predators large enough to pursue and overwhelm them. And finally more unstable enough to cause a mass extinction.

    And then stable enough for life to evolve shedding its migration habits, and losing its robustness, and in this stable period to become too vulnerable to survive when the inevitable instability returns.

    • We can’t live outside. Either we evolved into that situation, the climate changed, or we aren’t from here. I lean towards that we aren’t from here ( or at least some of us aren’t). We all have to live in some sort of pod. In the future we will have to leave. The planet as a whole is a very dangerous place. We are too reliant on natural forces. We are reliant that a super volcano doesn’t blow. We are reliant that an asteroid doesn’t cause widespread death. We are too reliant on quasi stable climate patterns. The sooner we can get off this rock, the better.

      • The inside of an asteroid… a large one. Moveable, stable, energy efficient and unlimited growth instead of the current no growth because we are going to run out of resources or we are hurting mother earth… this solar system could support trillions.

      • rishrac on January 23, 2016 at 6:08 am

        A viable population being established off-Earth is a fun and wise idea. There would be more than enough pioneer / frontiersman spirit types to volunteer and bravely go.

        One concept would be permanent space colonies fabricated with the luxuriousness of cruise ships and accompanied by support stations.

        John

  64. So the thiefs of sane mind say:

    – CO2 is guilty of warming global.
    – we global calculate warming on the map of CO2 distribution.

    – giving clear evidence whodunnit on our false pretending.

    kindergarten. How deep can one sink.

    Hans

  65. So the thiefs of sane mind say:

    – CO2 drives temperatures. Global.
    – we global calculate temperatures on our map of CO2 distribution.

    – thus we have global evidence and proof of whodunnit on temperatures. Based on our false pretensions.

    Twisted whishwash thinking. kindergarten.

    How deep can one sink.

  66. When I was applying to do a PhD in Malaysia, the head of department (a climatologist) told me that the value to the country would be unremarkable because one degree Celsius would hardly be noticed.

    So I suppose that the 1.5 degrees Celsius predicted in this paper might be noticed enough to warrant a 2-inch news item decades from now.

Comments are closed.