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

0 0 votes
Article Rating
566 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gary Pearse
January 20, 2016 2:58 pm

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

commieBob
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 20, 2016 3:39 pm

… 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.

ferdberple
Reply to  commieBob
January 20, 2016 6:11 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
January 21, 2016 6:08 am

Wouldn’t a Russian pay a skit load of Rubles?

Trebla
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 20, 2016 3:40 pm

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?

bonzono
Reply to  Trebla
January 20, 2016 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.
Sure the law works. It’s your model that is broken.

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

Reply to  Trebla
January 20, 2016 5:24 pm

Newtons law of cooling is fine. Its your assumption that your cup of morning coffee behaves like an atmosphere that is broken.

Reply to  Trebla
January 20, 2016 6:32 pm

Reply to  Trebla
January 21, 2016 1:42 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  Trebla
January 21, 2016 1:49 am

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. !!

Paul Mackey
Reply to  Trebla
January 21, 2016 2:33 am

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?

Reply to  Trebla
January 21, 2016 6:40 am

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

Winnipeg boy
Reply to  Trebla
January 21, 2016 8:40 am

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.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 20, 2016 5:47 pm

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.

Reply to  Bartleby
January 20, 2016 6:57 pm

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.

Treesong
Reply to  Bartleby
January 21, 2016 8:28 am

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.)

Tom Judd
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 20, 2016 6:03 pm

Gary Pearse:
“Its an ‘arts’ college.”
No wonder it’s such a pretty map.

DD More
Reply to  Tom Judd
January 21, 2016 11:07 am

“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

Two Labs
January 20, 2016 2:59 pm

“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.

DAV
Reply to  Two Labs
January 20, 2016 5:17 pm

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

Reply to  Two Labs
January 20, 2016 5:27 pm

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.

Phil's Dad
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:17 pm

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?

sven10077
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:33 pm

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:33 pm

A model that is consistent with the data is valid. That may or may not mean it is right – the SM demands further attempts to invalidate the model.

Janice Moore
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:36 pm

Maybe… this time… ?

CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 10:30 pm

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?

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:37 pm

J.
I’m sorry, ignoring the data does not mean the data is not there.
Warming has not stopped.
Are you having trouble parsing that sentence?

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 9:27 pm

” 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%.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:02 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:16 am

“There’s an imaginary bee in someone’s bonnet about this.”
Yep and you got stung hard !!

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:21 am

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.

Moa
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:39 am

” 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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:49 am

“by someone who refuses to look at the facts and data?”
Yep, stung by yourself.
Again… too ignorant to realise it

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:51 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:00 am

“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..

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:44 am

[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.

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:57 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:00 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:04 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 3:20 am

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

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:26 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 7:55 am

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.

Reply to  Two Labs
January 21, 2016 1:18 am

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?

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:55 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:08 am

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 😀

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:19 am

“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.. 🙂

Phil R
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 4:50 am

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?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:14 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 7:59 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 8:06 am

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?

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:30 pm

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 23, 2016 9:29 am

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?

Richard Petschauer
Reply to  Two Labs
January 23, 2016 1:49 pm

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.

January 20, 2016 3:00 pm

err wait a minute wjhat about OCO-2?
Oh yeah – satellites aren’t reliable …. yes, yes – OK Gavin

Reply to  tomo
January 21, 2016 4:34 pm

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))

TG
January 20, 2016 3:00 pm

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.

Reply to  TG
January 20, 2016 5:18 pm

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.

TG
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:36 pm

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.

TG
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:39 pm

Heads up there’s a new Troll in town = caitiecaitie!!!!!!

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:45 pm

“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?

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 10:01 pm

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.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 10:39 pm

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.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
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.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 11:09 pm

Trouble is , little brain-dead ditz, tis that Arctic sea ice has been increasing since the AMO started to decrease.comment image
You do know what the AMO is , don’t you , ditz?

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 11:11 pm

“but it will if the south pole melts”
roflmoa !
The southern ice isn’t going anywhere.!!
http://s19.postimg.org/f2zs7njcj/South_Temps.jpg
You really are an ignorant little troll, caitie ! 🙂

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:10 am

“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.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/01/Figure3.png
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!

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:50 am

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)

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:04 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:18 am

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)

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:19 am

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 !!!

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:20 am

I note that you focus on high school experiments.. presumably because you want to pass at some stage.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:24 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:25 am

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.)

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:27 am

Poor child..
You still hark back to your fail high school days.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:29 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:33 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:33 am

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 :-).

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:34 am

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?

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:05 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:36 am

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?

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:37 am

“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. 😉

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:38 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:40 am

“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. 🙂

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:44 am

“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. 🙂

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:46 am

” Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed b y GRACE’
Grace found to be WRONG !!!
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
IGNORE the facts.. its what you do.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:57 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:59 am

“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.. ?

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:06 am

“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. 🙂

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:09 am

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..

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:11 am

darn auto correct..
separate = desperate

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:14 am

: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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:23 am

“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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:30 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:59 am

“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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:01 am

“The FACT here andy, is that ice in antarctica is melting. And fast.”
The FACT is, that it is NOT !!
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Even NASA admits as much (with the unsubstantiated modelling prediction tacked on the end for good luck)

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:11 am

“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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:14 am

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

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:27 am

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. !!

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:29 am

Caitie, if you stop being so brain-locked belligerent, maybe you will LEARN something
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/photo/cold/antarctic/west-antarctic-rift-volcanic.gif

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:31 am
AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:55 am

I notice how you also totally ignore all reference to the AMO.. well done.
squirmy, that is for certain. !!!

MarkW
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:16 am

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.

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 7:23 am

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 🙂

seaice1
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 9:07 am

RACook – you are aware that the sea ice volume is the output of a model, aren’t you?

Michael Spurrier
Reply to  TG
January 21, 2016 2:52 am

They start in 1979 for a reason – 1990 IPCC report had satellite data going back much earlier than 1979, which showed that Arctic peaked in that year, and was much lower in 1974 – they put in the report……
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Couldn’t work out how to put the graph in…….but its on page 224 or 272 of the PDF though on here many times before too

Admin
January 20, 2016 3:01 pm

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…

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 20, 2016 5:23 pm

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.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 6:56 pm

Clearly , you are new here . Pardon , your slip is showing…

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:15 pm

Thanks bob. I admit I dont know your place of residence, and I dont really care: it’s irrelevant to your mistake.

Phil's Dad
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:24 pm

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!

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:29 pm

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.

gnomish
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:53 pm

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…

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:01 pm

” 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”.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:03 pm

@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

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:06 pm

“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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:06 pm

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:06 pm

“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.

brians356
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:13 pm

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.

Phil's Dad
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:32 pm

gnomish and others have responded for me (thanks).
As I said; Must do better.

sven10077
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:34 pm

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:56 pm

Thanks Brian, I think I’ll stick with being ahead for now.
If I make an error, point it out. If it’s valid, I accept it. Any more questions?

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 9:01 pm

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:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/01/Figure3.png

Marcus
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 9:51 pm

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

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 11:14 pm

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?

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 11:15 pm

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. !!!

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:33 am

“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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:45 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:58 am

And again uses ranting to avoids any understanding of the AMO.

MarkW
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:20 am

What about Al Gore who a few years ago bought a seaside mansion in CA?

MarkW
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:23 am

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

jvcstone
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 10:25 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:20 pm

cc,
DMI has more credibility, doubled and squared, than NSIDC. Here’s the January 2016 DMI chart:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
[The black line is the long term average]
But of course, NSIDC propaganda scare charts feed your confirmation bias:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/01/Figure3.png
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:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
And Arctic ice has been recovering since its relatively small DIP of a few years ago:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-31-03-13-43.png
I’d say, “Think for yourself,” but it’s clear you’ve drunk too much Kool-Aid.

ferdberple
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 20, 2016 6:19 pm

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.

Latitude
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 20, 2016 6:34 pm

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

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 21, 2016 12:49 am

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”.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:55 am

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. 😉

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:13 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:21 am

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. 🙂

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:23 am

” I’m pretty sure the relaxation conditions for CO2 are not related to altitude at all”
ie.. you have NO IDEA !!… correct !!! 😉

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 1:57 am

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?

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:41 am

You can touch on stuff you obviously don’t have any idea of if you like., doesn’t worry me.
Three questions, Caitie. Come on.. keep searching. 😉
Research and LEARNING time for you. 🙂
Here’s a little bit of light reading for you.
http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

gaelansclark
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 3:51 am

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?

MarkW
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:26 am

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.

Ray H
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 8:06 am

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?

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 8:20 am

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?.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 8:23 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 8:30 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 8:32 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 9:36 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 11:15 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 11:40 am

Im unclear what you hope to gain by pursuing the issue.
Wow. Itz worse than I thought!

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 12:08 pm

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.

manicbeancounter
January 20, 2016 3:03 pm

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.
http://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/030315_2326_realclimate4.jpg?w=900
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.

Reply to  manicbeancounter
January 20, 2016 5:33 pm

“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.

manicbeancounter
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 3:44 pm

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.

Latitude
Reply to  manicbeancounter
January 20, 2016 6:37 pm

shows nearly 4C of warming…..and everyone’s really bitchin about it

January 20, 2016 3:05 pm

the correlation between surface temperature and “cumulative emissions” is spurious. here is the proof of that. https://youtu.be/vUvLoE5v0yQ

Reply to  Jamal Munshi
January 20, 2016 3:18 pm

Jamal:
Loved the video! What more is there to say! Watch it folks — note the R^2 values!

karabar
January 20, 2016 3:19 pm

How does that explain previous Arctic “warm periods”, such as those in the nineteenth century?

Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 3:24 pm

… 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…..

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 3:29 pm

Gamer (still playing, chuckle): … and Who’s on first.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 3:47 pm

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)

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 4:42 pm

Dear Janice…..WHY did you make watch that ?? LOL

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 5:02 pm

lol — hoping it would bring a smile to someone’s face… . 🙂
Glad it gave you a laugh, Marcus.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 5:41 pm

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)

Janice Moore
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:00 pm

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):
http://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?

Phil's Dad
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:12 pm

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?

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:26 pm

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.

Barbara
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:38 pm

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:45 pm

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.

JohnB
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:55 pm

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. 😉

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:11 pm

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:12 pm

” 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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:40 pm

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.

sven10077
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:45 pm

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:55 pm

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 Alberts
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 9:49 pm

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 10:06 pm

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:07 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:29 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:59 am

Again caitie uses a meaningless rant to avoid the point.
.

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 3:06 am

yippee.. we have a new term..
“convective radiation”
roflmao !!!

gaelansclark
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 4:25 am

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 4:47 am

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

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 5:34 am

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 5:50 am

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:11 am

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

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:17 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:30 am

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 8:41 am

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

Reply to  richardscourtney
January 21, 2016 2:08 pm

“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

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 9:28 am

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 9:40 am

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

JohnB
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 3:20 pm

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.

Robert of Ottawa
January 20, 2016 3:24 pm

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.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 20, 2016 3:31 pm

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

PiperPaul
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 20, 2016 4:21 pm

Robert, I think your post is exponentially true!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 20, 2016 3:32 pm

(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 …”

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 5:49 pm

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.

lee
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 6:25 pm

“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.

lee
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 6:38 pm

‘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?

Latitude
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 6:44 pm

…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

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 6:46 pm

I wonder, cc, if you are even capable…. well, here goes — another try at penetrating the fog:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

Latitude
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 6:57 pm

LOL…Janice I was hoping you’d post that

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 7:36 pm

J. data does not show warming has not stopped.
facts matter. enjoy.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 8:00 pm

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.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 8:26 pm

@ 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.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 8:50 pm

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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 8:53 pm

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.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 9:09 pm

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!.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 9:20 pm

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.

BruceC
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 9:51 pm

CC, contrary to popular belief, ostriches DO NOT BURY THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND!

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 10:08 pm

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?

BruceC
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 10:27 pm

‘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.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/Temp%20vs%20CO2%20-%20400000%20years_zpskyy0qvra.jpg

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 21, 2016 2:42 am

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.

BruceC
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 21, 2016 5:00 am

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.

BruceC
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 21, 2016 5:14 am

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%
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/paulinestory0.jpg

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 21, 2016 5:21 am

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.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 21, 2016 5:27 am

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.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 21, 2016 6:14 am

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.

Phil Cartier
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 21, 2016 8:21 am

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.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 21, 2016 11:27 am

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.

January 20, 2016 3:31 pm

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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ristvan
January 20, 2016 3:33 pm

Because an unsupported conclusion is “proof” to the Climate Clowns.

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 4:44 pm

If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything !!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 20, 2016 5:04 pm

Yup. And, (this from AndyG55 on latest Monckton thread) SOME Stevens like “dat”… so they can just add stuff on.

Reply to  ristvan
January 20, 2016 5:51 pm

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?

Janice Moore
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 6:44 pm

Since there was no science in the above article, what else could it be? Insanity?
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

Phil's Dad
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:00 pm

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 7:41 pm

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?

Phil's Dad
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 9:12 pm

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 9:32 pm

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.

rogerknights
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 2:51 am

“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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:22 am

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).

Jan Christoffersen
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 8:55 am

CC
You certainly have succeeded in hijacking this post, you persistent little troll.

Reply to  ristvan
January 21, 2016 9:36 am

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!

January 20, 2016 3:37 pm

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.

Martin F
Reply to  Aphan
January 20, 2016 3:58 pm

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.

January 20, 2016 3:37 pm

Wasn’t there a paper last year about CO2 having the opposite affect on the Antartic a cooling effect!

Proud Skeptic
January 20, 2016 3:39 pm

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.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
January 20, 2016 5:55 pm

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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 6:34 pm

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?)

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 6:59 pm

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.

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:00 pm

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.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:20 pm

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 5:10 am

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

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:37 am

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.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
January 20, 2016 7:50 pm

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.

Marcus
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 8:56 pm

Definitely seems like you’ve had a little too much Smirnov (sic) vodka !! Hic….

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 9:06 pm

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?

Marcus
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 9:16 pm

No, you still sound like a brainwashed socialist !! LOL

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 9:24 pm

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?

lee
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 10:53 pm

‘ 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

AndyG55
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 11:20 pm

“those who wouldn’t sit through math or science class in high school”
Says she, from experience.
Make that “couldn’t”

gaelansclark
Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 5:04 am

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!!!!!!

Reply to  caitiecaitie
January 21, 2016 6:41 am

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
January 20, 2016 8:17 pm

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.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 20, 2016 9:12 pm

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 20, 2016 9:46 pm

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.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 20, 2016 10:22 pm

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.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
January 21, 2016 6:30 am

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!

January 20, 2016 3:39 pm

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…

R. de Haan
January 20, 2016 3:51 pm

Never send your kids to this University unless you expect them to come home with shit for brains.

co2islife
January 20, 2016 4:05 pm

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?

KTM
Reply to  co2islife
January 20, 2016 4:43 pm

It’s because heat rises, and Warmists think the North Pole is UP.

Janice Moore
Reply to  KTM
January 20, 2016 5:06 pm

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.

Reply to  KTM
January 20, 2016 5:59 pm

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.

Janice Moore