UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for April, 2016: +0.71 deg. C

From Dr. Roy Spencer

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2016 is +0.71 deg. C, down slightly from the March value of +0.73 deg. C (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2016_v6

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS

2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13

2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07

2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04

2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08

2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27

2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46

2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48

2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53

2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55

2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53

2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52

2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61

2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84

2016 02 +0.83 +1.17 +0.50 +0.99

2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09

2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.94

I expect average cooling to continue throughout the year as El Nino weakens and is replaced with La Nina, now expected by mid-summer or early fall. Nevertheless, 2016 could still end up as a record warm year in the satellite record…it all depends upon how fast the warmth from the El Nino dissipates and La Nina sets in.

The “official” UAH global image for April, 2016 should be available in the next several days here.

The new Version 6 files (use the ones labeled “beta5”) should be updated soon, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt

Mid-Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0beta5.txt

Tropopause:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0beta5.txt

Lower Stratosphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0beta5.txt

Advertisements

396 thoughts on “UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for April, 2016: +0.71 deg. C

  1. Judging from the 1998 El Niño peak, it will be about 12 more months before we know where we are in terms of warming. The 2016 peak is 0.1°K warmer than the 1998 peak. We will see how the 2017 valley compares to the 1997 valley.

      • They keep on using 1979 as the base for all these graphs about how hot it is today. !979 here in Upstate NY was like Siberia during the Napoleon invasion: bitter cold.

  2. The last 6 months from October 2015 to March 2016 set monthly records. However April 1998 was 0.743 and April 2016 was 0.71. As well, RSS is out and April 2016 came in at 0.757. This is 0.1 lower than the 0.857 from 1998.
    Prior to this year, the UAH April 1998 anomaly of 0.743 held the record for almost 18 years until it was broken by the February 2016 anomaly of 0.833.
    As we all know, both 1998 and 2016 were impacted by very strong El Ninos. It may be interesting to compare the first 4 months of 1998 with the first 4 months of 2016 on UAH.
    For 1998, the average was (0.479 + 0.653 + 0.475 + 0.743)/4 = 0.5875.
    For 2016, the average is (0.541 + 0.833 + 0.734 + 0.71)/4 = 0.7045.
    This is a difference of 0.117 C over 18 years which translates to 0.65 C per century. That is certainly nothing to worry about!
    I am expecting a big drop in May. See the following:
    https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl
    I realize May is only 5 days old, but all 5 days so far for 2016 are below 2010 on ch06. The May 2010 values for UAH and RSS were 0.414 and 0.526 respectively.

  3. haha, man I should go back and find all the WUWT commenters claiming that there is no global warming at all and that everything showing any warming is based on doctored temperature records.
    Now even Dr. Spencer’s results show record warming. It would be really good if some of those commenters would come out of the woods now and at admit that they were wrong.
    Yes, they may still claim that ‘it doesn’t matter’. But so many people swore that there was no warming at all, while now clearly there is. So. Looking forward to all the hat eating! 😉
    Cheers,
    Ben

    • oh, ok so “it’s the el nino” is going to be the party line. So explain to me this: we’ve had el nino’s for a very long time. If there was no base line warming then the peak of each el nino would stay the same. However, this peak is higher than the previous ones, indicating el nino + baseline warming.
      The cognitive dissonance is strong in Paul Homewood!

      • Benben:
        No one doubts we’ve enjoyed about 0.82C of beneficial warming recovery since the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE in 1850, of which, CO2 has perhaps contributed about 0.2C of the total…
        So what???
        For the past 20 years, there hasn’t been a global warming trend, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 20 years….
        We’ll get about another 0.3C of beneficial CO2 warming recovery between now and 2100 per CO2 doubling, LESS the cooling effects of the coming Grand Solar Minimum expected to start around 2035 and last 50~100 years…
        There is a good chance global temps may well be cooler by 2100 than they are now….
        The disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis predicted 3C~6C of CO2 induced warming by 2100, which is impossible, and explains why the disparity between CAGW projections are so devoid of reality:
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

      • You do realise there are natural warming cycles, and we are in a long term one since the Little Ice Age? Hence some warming is to be expected on long term trends (ie ones that pre-date any effect man could have with CO2 emissions?)

      • benben, I’ve not seen any WUWT posters saying there has been no warming at all. All agree there has been cumulative warming since the LIA, with repeated periods of cooling and lulls in that warming trend. I only saw claims that the last 18 or so years have not warmed, despite a continued increase in atmospheric CO2.
        P.S. There is no “party line” among skeptics, only among CAGW adherents.
        SR

      • Temperatures have been rising since at least 1800, Benben. Where were you getting gas for your SUV back then. It’s nothing to do with CO2 and we can’t stop it. We don’t even understand it. A bunch of pathetic models have been created by idiots lined up for billions in free money and they can’t even doctor the data enough to make them work out. Just look at the facts, man. Don’t you feel like you’re trying to push a fat man up a ladder and he keeps crapping his pants?

      • benben, I know you are being paid to make warmistas look stupid, but dang, do you have to be so good at it?
        Everybody was saying a year ago that the coming El Nino would cause a big temperature spike, just as every previous El Nino has done.
        Do you really believe that after hiding for almost 20 years, CO2 warmth suddenly jumped out and caused more warming in 6 months than had been seen in over 40 years?
        I’m waiting for the coming La Nina to cause a big drop in temperature, then we can drag out all these posts and use them to taunt benben and our other warmistas.

      • All the short warming increase lines up with El-Nino’s.
        The 1982,1998,2005 2010 and now this, all has been warming when they were ongoing.Surely you didn’t miss that?

      • You guys have short memories. Back when the satellite records showed no significant warming at high altitudes, but all the land/ocean based records did show significant warming, there were A LOT of posters saying that it was a massive scam and that the only reason there was any warming at all was because of fraud.
        Now the satellite records show some pretty strong warming as well, these conspiracy theorists are not commenting (where are you when I need you DBstealy?).
        So obviously, all you guys that said there was warming, but argue that it’s not significant, or not due to CO2, this message was not meant for you as I’m not commenting on that here! So no need for angry comments. Although I understand that being angry on the internet is a big hobby for some, so keep at it if it makes you happy I guess.
        Cheers,
        Ben
        [benben doesn’t have the skills to be able to separate warming in both the satellite and surface record from the recent record el nino induced warmth. Once the el nino disappears (and its already on its way out), temperatures will fall. benben’s point is moot, just ignore him, because he’s posting from Yale under a fake name and email, and you can always tell a Yale man, but you can’t tell him much -mod]

      • Mod I believe the word you’re looking for is ‘alias’, not fake.
        The el nino increases temperature every 4 years, but one el nino peak should still be the same as all the other ones, if there was no baseline warming. Which clearly there is.
        But sure, lets see what the temp looks like in a year or so.
        Greetings from rainy New Haven 🙂
        Ben

      • Hold your horses, big ben… wait patiently for the el nino to run its course along with the ensuing la nina. And after all is said and done, and we see some net warming at then end of the day, THEN you can go round showing all those short sighted “watties” your fine peacock feathers. On the other hand, should lord monkton resume posting his pause graphs, then it is the watties who will be showing YOU…

      • hello afonzarelli,
        Thanks for your reply. Although the increase in absolute peak temperature definitely warrants a bit of fun at the expense of the people saying that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARMING WHATSOEVER, you are also right that for a conclusion about a break in trend that would satisfy the crowd here we should just wait a year or two to see how the lowest temps develop. So, lets meet at exactly this spot in two years shall we?
        Cheers,
        Ben

        • benben says:
          … the people saying that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARMING WHATSOEVER
          Once again: name those people. Or ar you just making up fictitious statements again?

      • “So, let’s meet at exactly this spot in two years shall we?”
        Make it three and you’ve got a deal…

      • I do not know anyone who thinks that anything more than the short year trend is controlled by el nino la nina. I have heard almost no comments that the moderate year ~ 175 trend is not a warming trend (after all it is the “Modern Warm Period” that started at the end of the “little Ice Age”. I have also heard almost no comment from the Warmest crowd that all the some what longer trends are all growing colder be they the ~8,000 trend from the Holocene maximum. The longer term trend from the start of the Pleistocene ~ 2.5 million years ago of the even longer term trend from the Eocene Optimum ~50 million years ago(when it was ~6 degrees warmer than now).

    • Yeah Benben as per usual your statement is “Much ado about nothing” Only 0.117 degrees since 1998 which will disappear when the La Nina follows next year and the pause comes back.

    • haha, man I should go back and find all the WUWT commenters claiming that there is no global warming at all and that everything showing any warming is based on doctored temperature records.

      What was typically said is that there was no significant warming for the last 18 years, and the 18 years is significant because Ken Santer said If there were no warming for 17 years, then AGW would be disproved.

      • What was typically said is that there was no significant warming for the last 18 years, and the 18 years is significant because Ken Santer said If there were no warming for 17 years, then AGW would be disproved.

        I doubt if Santer did say that mainly because it isn’t true. The sensitivity of the climate to CO2 might be called into question with an extended period no no warming but that does not necessarily invalidate AGW theory.

      • I thought he said that the models would be discredited or something along those lines.

      • well, then the typical person has nothing to prove by responding to my posts, because I only want to poke fun at those who deny any warming at all.

      • benben,
        You’ve repeatedly claimed that there are lots of folks here who deny that there has been any global warming.
        I’ve repeatedly challenged you to name even one, but…
        *crickets*

      • dbstealey
        October 1, 2013 at 10:51 am
        …That being the case, explain why there is NO ocean warming. …
        dbstealey
        October 1, 2013 at 7:48 pm
        Konrad,
        jai mitchell cannot produce any empirical evidence at all showing measurable changes in temperature due to human emissions. Neither can anyone else.
        That is not to state conclusively that AGW cannot exist. It is certainly possible. But if it exists, it is such a small forcing that it cannot even be measured. Therefore, AGW should be completely disregarded for any policy decisions.
        If something is too small to measure, it is hardly science…

      • ens josh,
        You’re deflecting.
        I commented on AGW, not on global warming in general. And the ARGO submersibles indicate that since their deployment, deep ocean warming has been non-existent almost everywhere.
        And of course there has been natural global warming, ever since the Little Ice Age wound down. I’ve never said there wasn’t. I did point out that jai mitchell couldn’t produce any measureable evidence of AGW. For that matter, neither can you. But AGW is not ‘global warming’, it is only a small subset of global warming.
        But it’s nice to know I have a follower who has nothing better to do than to desperately comb through years of comments, hoping to find something that contradicts what I wrote. Sorry you failed, ens josh.
        But I love knowing you tried, and that you’re so fixated on me that you’ve spent hours searching for those comments. They just don’t show what you thought they did. But good for you, you tried.
        Now, try getting a life…

      • dbstealey said (to ens josh): “Now, try getting a life…”
        That’s a rich comment, coming from someone who lives on WUWT.
        [When one is retired, one HAS lived a life. And has earned the right to live a second one as he (or she) chooses. .mod]

      • It’s one thing to post many a comment of a high degree of value here at wuwt (regardless of whether or not one is retired). Quite another to take the time, energy that ens josh did and wind up missing the point any way…
        [Reply: or even worse, being an impostor and stealing the name of a legitimate commenter. The real Johann Wundersamer did not make the last two comments above. They were forged by an identity thief/site pest. -mod]

      • afonzarelli,
        Thank you. And I notice a moderator has found a counterfeit commenter. An impostor. It’s pretty sad, when someone pretends he has more support than he actually has — and that fakir says other folks don’t have a life!
        I’ve always known the alarmist clique is pretty small potatoes. The true ‘consensus’ has always been heavily on the side of skeptics of the man-made global warming scare. The fake comments above prove they have no honesty, either.

    • Well, typically, you misrepresent pretty much everything skeptics and most posters say. ‘BenBen’ – jeez, why not just go with ‘Bobo’?

      • Um that’s the temperature in England. For the sake of honesty, shouldn’t you point that out? Just in case someone thought it was a global temp. record?

      • Why on earth are you shrinking the temperature record to a small section of the graph and overlaying it with a graph of human CO2 emissions which has been stretched to 6 times the size of the temperature?
        Why not compare with CO2 levels?
        Why draw a single linear trend line for the entire 350 years, when it’s obvious the temperatures have not been rising linearly?
        And finally, how do you get that red dotted line at the top, labelled “climate model prediction”? Which models have predicted annual Central England temperatures would rise to 17C?

      • Just for the record:
        CET from 1659 to 2015 (the green line in bazzer1659’s graph) has a linear trend of 0.27C per century.
        CET from 1950 to 2015 has a linear trend of 1.72C per century.

      • Yes, very steep rise up to 1741 in England. Probably didn’t cause much panic then because they were coming out of the very cold temperatures in the late 17th Century. (Though it’s difficult to be too certain of the rate of warming given the CET is less reliable that far back.)
        All of which agrees with my point that the trend has not been linear as bazzer1959 was suggesting.

      • dbstealy,

        But I don’t see you railing against China, Russia, India, and a hundred other countries, whose emissions continue to rise

        You seem to be arguing with a post I haven’t made. My only mention of CO2 emissions was to point out the nonsense of bazzer1959’s graph.

      • wow, that is some random abuse of line drawing right there. I’ll save that image! Beautiful

      • benben,
        Still waiting for you to link to a name of someone here who says there hasn’t been any global warming.
        It’s just like all your other assertions: baseless nonsense.

    • One month? Three months? Half a year?
      All are in the weather category, not climate.
      But then benji, you claim to already know such things. The minor fact that you never state plain facts, but rely upon sophistic falsehoods, just proves your sham.

      • Um that’s the temperature in England.
        For the sake of honesty, shouldn’t you point that out? Just in case someone thought it was a global temp. record?

      • You mean, if they can’t read that big banner at the top of the plot? Do we really need that level of hand-holding for the terminally stupid?

    • Benben.
      Just a couple of things….
      From: Tom Wigley
      To: Phil Jones
      Subject: 1940s
      Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
      Cc: Ben Santer
      So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
      then this would be significant for the global mean — but
      we’d still have to explain the land blip.
      It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
      di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
      Oh and could you please supply me with a list of temperature recording sites operational circa 1880 for the following locations.
      Arctic. Antarctic. Africa. Siberia. South America, Southern Atlantic and Southern Pacific Oceans.
      Thanks.

    • bonbon sez:
      haha, man I should go back and find all the WUWT commenters claiming that there is no global warming at all and that everything showing any warming is based on doctored temperature records.
      benben, I challenge you to post only a half dozen names of commenters who said what you’re alleging — out of the thousands of posts here that actually don’t say that, and never have.
      So give us the names of commenters who have said “that there is no global warming at all.”
      Can you name even ONE??
      The gauntlet is down, benben. Put up or shut up. And if you can’t do either, at least we’ll be able to re-post your non-answer. IF you have one.

      • DB, I’m quite sure you at a certain point came out and claimed that temperature increase was driving the CO2 increase. That’s even dumber than looking at the temperature record 1880-2016 and claiming there is no warming whatsoever. Because, you know, where did that quarter trillion tons of CO2 come from, if not from fossil fuels?
        Anyway, I’m still ignoring you because of the incredibly unpleasant things you said about people in the third world. Bye DB

      • benben,
        Quit your incessant deflecting. You stated unequivocally that lots of commenters here have said that global warming never happened. I’ve repeatedly challenged you to post their names.
        Since I never said that, you’re just deflecting. Either back up your claims, or we’ll know you’re making baseless and false accusations.

    • I think I remember you…are you the guy who couldn’t grasp the concept of extending a trend backwards and was always claiming the data was cherry-picked? The claim you could never comprehend was that there was no global warming in the past “x” months and “y” days, not that global warming was non-existent and going to be that way forever and ever. And the data you’re looking at…well, if you had paid any attention, the current peak was well-anticipated by posters on this according to El Nino strength and history (most notably 98-99). So maybe you should have paid more attention to the posters here instead of your strawman.
      I apologize if I have confused you with another idiot.

      • I think I remember you…are you the guy who couldn’t grasp the concept of extending a trend backwards and was always claiming the data was cherry-picked?

        I expect you are thinking of me. Though I didn’t have a problem with the concept of extending a trend backwards, I just couldn’t understand why anyone thought it made a difference.
        For example I can now extend the trend backwards over RSS data, to see that the rate of warming since November 2007, (8 years and 6 months) has been rising at over 3.5 C per century. That would be an example of cherry picking. I deliberately looked backwards to find the longest period I could that was rising at such a rate and ignore the fact it ends (or starts) with an El Nino.

    • Benben, there was no warming during the time they claimed no warming. Why does that disturb you?
      Lots of your heroes also claimed we were not warming during the same time…

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005 – “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
      __________________
      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009 – ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
      __________________
      Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009 – “…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
      __________________
      Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009 – “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
      __________________
      Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009 – “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
      __________________
      Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009 – “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
      __________________
      Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010 – “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
      __________________
      Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
      [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”[A] “Yes, but only just”.
      __________________
      Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010 – “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
      __________________
      Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011 – “Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
      __________________
      Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011 – “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
      __________________
      Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011 – “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
      __________________
      Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012 – “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
      __________________
      Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013 – “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
      __________________
      Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013 – “The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.[Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
      __________________
      Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013 – “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
      __________________
      Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013 – ” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
      __________________
      Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013 – “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
      __________________
      Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013 – “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
      If the only warming that occurs is during El Niño’s and it is less then the direct affect of CO2 doubling, then that is nothing more then another mark against CAGW theory.

  4. Nino3.4 is crashing, as it did following the peak of the strong 97/98 Super El Niño, and La Niña conditions could start as early as November of this year.
    By next month, UAH temp anomalies should start reflecting this El Niño collapse, and should fall precipitously over the next 18 months as La Niña conditions cause global temps to fall.
    By the end of 2017/early 2018, a flat global temp trend from the middle of 1996 should reappear, extending the “hiatus” to 21 years….
    CAGW is so screwed.

    • Because (-0.09+0.06)/2 = -0.015 ~ -0.02.
      Tropics have nothing to do with it, because NH and SH include the tropics too, AFAIK.
      Rich.

      • John, If you calculate a number from measurements from a number of satellites and do the necessary adjustements for each single satellite, then you get very easy some thousands.

      • “If you calculate a number from measurements from a number of satellites and do the necessary adjustements for each single satellite, then you get very easy some thousands.”
        Which – being purely a product of False Precision Syndrome – are of course entirely meaningless.

    • Tropics do not count since they are split between north and south. And 0.09 down and 0.06 up averages 0.03/2 = 0.015 down over the globe. To 2 digits, this is 0.02 down. Note that the average of 0.85 and 0.58 is 0.715, so there was a rounding issue here to get 0.71.

    • Northern and southern hemispheres cover the full globe. Add them and divide by two, plus or minus for rounding. The tropics are a portion of each hemisphere.

  5. “the 30-year (1981-2010) average” ….
    Why do decadal ranges quoted by climate scientists
    usually begin with a year ending in ‘1’ and end with a
    year ending in ‘0’ ?
    Is there some law against : 1980-2009 ?
    I suppose they think “the 1960s” began in 1961

    • Rex, for the same reason weeks range from Sunday through Saturday. Sure, Saturday through Friday is a week long, but is not a “week” in the sense of “this week” or “next week”.
      Each “decade” is one of a series of decades that began with the decade of year 1 through year 10. Each decade is a ten year period ending at the end of Dec. 31 of each tenth year, which year thus has an ending 0.
      P.S. The 1st century ended at the end of Dec. 31 (as we count it) of the year we call 100, and the 20th century ended at the end of Dec. 31, 2000.
      SR

      • Yes, I know, but personally I have no objection to calling the years BC1, AD1, …, AD9 a “decade”. Everything is on a pretty arbitrary base, so convenience for us now, to be able to call 1990-1999 a decade and to have a new millennium start in 2000 and not 2001, as the digits click, should override everything else IMHO.
        Rich.

  6. So we are still in the 1930’s-1998 temperature downtrend.
    We could break out of this downtrend, but it hasn’t happened yet. February 2016 broke the downtrend, but the temperature is lower now, and feels like its going to go lower to me.
    We seem to be having a very mild spring in the central U.S., consistent with the mild weather in the 21st century. I’m talking tornadoes mostly here. We can still get some hot summer temperatures, tornadoes or no tornadoes, but that still doesn’t change the fact that the weather is less extreme today.
    2016, and all the 21st century years have to be cooler than in some previous decades, if we go by the “extreme climate events equals a hotter atmosphere” formula.
    There is no comparison to the benign weather we have experienced in the 21st century compared to the really extreme weather that was experienced in the 1930’s and 1950’s. It was hotter then than now.
    Even if the current 1930’s-1998, temperature downtrend line is broken, the temperatures would still have to exceed the 1930’s maximum in order to be characterized as unprecedented. And even then, that’s no guarantee that humans had anything to do with the heat, since it got that hot before, naturally, without human help.
    What’s that 1930’s maximum figure? I don’t know. Ask the Climate Change Gurus. They are the ones with the database. See Climategate emails for details.
    All I know is the Climate Change Gurus said the 1930’s was hotter than 1998, and they had to conspire to hide this information and make it look like the Earth was in a warming trend when, in fact, it was, and is in a cooling trend. Clever little conspirators aren’t they. Look at all the damage they have done.

  7. It’s a convention. Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, calendars begin with ‘Year 1’, not year 0.

    • I’m with Rex: I’ve always thought it was a silly convention. If we knew that Jesus was born in AD 0 or AD 1 then it might be a different matter. As it is, yes, for most people the Sixties is 1960-1969 and a 30 year period 1980-2009 would make eminent sense.
      Rich.

    • There are a lot of things in this world worth worrying about.
      This isn’t one of them.

  8. Who really,really cares about averages or miniscule degree changes.
    . The fact that I may get fewer apples this year or the Rhineland in Germany is having a terrible frost which is decimating the vineyards or the Netherlands getting snow on top of their beautiful tulips I believe is a little more reverlent to what matters in the greater scheme of things.

      • Given that a global temperature decline of less than one interval on your scale would herald a new glacial maximum, the point I assume you’re trying to make is a silly one.

      • dbstealey:
        You seem to think that posting this graph is rather clever and meaningful. (I does often seem to appear on here)
        May I suggest that the next time you are hauled into A&E with a heart attack that you request that the medics attenuate the y-axis on the electrocardiogram trace to hide the fact that you are having one.
        Clue: It doesn’t make the problem go away in that case and not in the case of AGW.

      • PS:
        And the irony is that Brandon Gates (pro-science) – was the first to post it here as a tongue-in-cheek wind-up of denizens.
        To funny.

      • It is valid to put things on a properly scaled graph to see that such flux is really quite minor compared to historic flux throughout the geological record.
        The analogy to a heart attack is ass-backwards, as the earth is recovering from dangerously low CO2, so CO2 is the life support needed, and in denying it, you are preventing the patient from recovery.
        I have little interest in Brandon’s games, other then they demonstrate his lack of seriousness.

      • “It is valid to put things on a properly scaled graph to see that such flux is really quite minor compared to historic flux throughout the geological record.”
        So you are saying the earth’s temperature has fluctuated by 120F, or 320K, during the geological period?

      • dbstealey said: “Here’s a GISS chart in Kelvin:….Even less scary, isn’t it?”
        You’ve just proven how pointless these graphs are. Yes, any variation in a measurement over time will appear smaller when plotted against a larger Y axis range. So when you have a temperature variation of .7C, or 1, or 2, or any small number, yes, it will look smaller when you increase your Y axis bounds. Gee, why not choose a range of 0 – 1000K to make the increase appear even smaller!

      • Chris says:
        So you are saying the earth’s temperature has fluctuated by 120F, or 320K, during the geological period?
        How could you possibly conclude that?
        Trot along back to hotwhopper, or wherever they consume nonsense statements like that.

    • It’s precisely the same data that dbstealey just posted. If you’re now saying that the data is wrong, why post that graph?
      If that global temperature data is wrong, please give me a link to global temperature data, over the past 100+ years (including the most recent data), that you consider to be true.
      Yes, it is normal to show the anomaly rather than the raw data. If you wanted to plot the raw data, you would scale the y axis to fit the data so you can see it. dbstealy has put the data in a range of -40 to +120, despite the fact that that is stupidly bigger than the historical temperatures of the earth. If you don’t like the anomaly approach, just show the raw data. Only plot it in a range where we can see it, and where it’s not imperceptible. It’s just basic skills in plotting data.
      I could take a similar approach, and plot the FT index in a range -1000 to +20000. You’d see a straight line. I could do that with any data.

      • hillbilly,
        1. They are not my graphs. The linked graphs are from various sources. The alarmist clique believes that everyone is wrong. But they don’t post their own graphs, do they?
        2. The ranges are all different. Some begin at 0º, some at –10º, etc. But no matter what is posted by skeptics, the alarmist ignoratii always say, ‘That one is wrong, why didn’t you start at a different point?’ It’s just incessant arguing, because as usual, they’ve got nothin’.
        3. If you can ‘take a similar approach’, be my guest. I stand by what the charts I posted show: there is absolutely nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Thus, there is nothing to worry about.
        And hilbilly says:
        It’s precisely the same data that dbstealey just posted. If you’re now saying that the data is wrong, why post that graph?
        What graph? Who are you replying to? Your comment makes no sense. Not a surprise.

      • alvahillbilly:
        I haven’t seen you on here before.
        But a heads-up.
        Don’t expect reciprocity from dbstealey (as his name corruption of you illustrates).
        He is way, way down the rabbit-hole.
        His hand-waving is of course correct ( and anyone is in doubt that is deffo (sarc)).
        The scientific community is of course all agog on his very words.
        Because as we all know it’s cutting-edge “science” (sarc)

      • Toneb says:
        Don’t expect reciprocity from dbstealey…
        Wrong as always, Toneb. I answer questions — unlike the alarmist crowd, which typically asks incessant questions but never answers questions. That includes you.
        As usual, I posted numerous facts, evidence, links, and rational arguments. Nine (9) charts from different sources — versus your fact-free pablum.
        Wake me when you can compete on the science. Because it hasn’t happened yet…

      • @dbstealy:
        So far, I’ve seen the following strategies from the [snip . . site rules . . mod]:
        When posting graphs of global temperature, either pick a short period from around 2000 ish and ignore all the previous data, or show data up until about 1970 and ignore all the subsequent data, or only show data for one country. When forced to actually show *global* data for the whole of 1880 ish until now, plot with axes scaled so that all the patterns are crushed into about 2 pixels. Presumably on the basis that you think that a range of 120 degrees is a reasonable one to capture the earth’s historical temperature range. Obviously you have some unique knowledge of the earth that says that it has fluctuated around by 100-ish degrees in the past,yes? While maintaining life on it? What would temperature data of, say, the last 400,000 years you like on your scale? Or how about if we went all the way back to the PETM extinction event – what would that look like on your scale? Just a minor blip, right?
        Suggestion: try plotting longer temperature records on your scale, and see how easy it is to spot the major events that we know have happened. Like mass extinctions.
        Really impressive guys.
        And then if I show a plot of the same data, only with the full global data on a scale you can actually see, you then claim that the data is wrong anyway, so the whole thing is a waste of time.
        I asked the question before, and it was avoided with silly tactics. So I’ll ask again:
        Can you point me to a source of global – yes, I do mean global – temperature data for period 1880iish until present – and yes I do mean that whole period, or more – that you are willing to accept?
        I won’t engage further until I get an answer to that.
        thank you.

      • alva hilbilly wrote:
        Can you point me to a source of global – yes, I do mean global – temperature data for period 1880iish until present…
        Since you refuse to accept the first two charts I posted above that show global T from the 1800’s, your mind is made up and closed tighter than a submarine hatch. Rational thought apparently can’t penetrate. So I don’t mind in the least if you disengage and go away.
        For other readers, I have similar charts like those. If anyone would like to see them, just ask.

      • @dbstealy:
        no, your charts were fine, it’s just you chose a y-axis scaling that meant you can’t see any of the patterns in the data. What’s strange is that you were talking about a cooling trend, which you can only see if you use a small y-axis range. But when I post longer-term data with a similar scaling, you say that it’s been exaggerated. So you want a small scaling when you talk about cooling, but then shrink it again when I mention the obvious warming trend.
        My other comment was a response to TA, who said that the data that I (and you) posted was the ‘BIG LIE’.

        • alvahillbilly says:
          you chose a y-axis scaling…
          They’re not my charts. They are from various sources.
          That’s why I ask you to cut and paste my comments, verbatim. You know, the way I do with you and others.
          And regarding “other patterns in the data”, what you want is a chart that magnifies teeny, tiny fluctuations of tenth- and hundredth-degree wiggles so you can say, “AHA!! Look at the temperatures! They’re going up!”
          Well, they’re going down, too. Or they’re flat, like they have been for most of the past couple of decades.
          For 95%+ of the temperature record, whole degrees were used. But that didn’t scare the public, so now you insist on using tiny fractions of a degree — as if that will do anything except add more confusion.
          Your confirmation bias smothers any possible skepticism. Because you want to Believe. But Planet Earth is demonstrating that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening.
          You can’t accept that. Why not?

      • @dbstealy
        my mistake, it was Andrew claiming that there’s a cooling trend, not you. So I guess you would agree with me that there’s no cooling trend? I mean if you think your chart is a reasonable way to plot the data, it means that basically there’s no real variation in the climate at all?

      • @dbstealey:
        you posted several graphs with a very large scale on the y-axis, and said:
        “We see that any changes in global T are so minuscule they’re not worth worrying about.
        And what the alarmist crowd wants is a scale showing scary warming. But they don’t get that with a reasonable axis beginning at zero:”
        followed by a plot with an even bigger y-axis range (down to absolute zero).
        that was you, right? You also posted a chart with a y-axis range of 120 degrees, with a heading “Normal view of global warming”, to contrast it with one with a heading “Magnified view of global warming”
        So: if you’re saying that these ranges are good ones to use for the y-axis, presumably you think that the cooling that Andrew was talking about doesn’t exist? Agree?

      • alvahillbilly,
        Why don’t you ask Andrew? It’s his statement that you’re trying to get me to interpret. Just bypass the middleman, and go directly to the source.
        Regarding the lack of global warming for most of the past 20 years: that isn’t disputed, except by a small handful of alarmists who are mindlessly repeating the latest talking point that global warming never stopped.
        And where the chart axis begins isn’t relevant. The relevant point is that the endless predictions of accelerating global warming were flat wrong. All of them. Despite the steady rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, global T did not accelerate upward as predicted.
        As Prof Richard Feynman (and Einstein, and Popper, and Langmuir, and many others) have pointed out: when a hypothesis is contradicted by real world observations, the hypothesis is wrong. It is falsified.
        That’s all there is to it — and it doesn’t require lots of examples. Just one observation that contradicts a hypothesis is enough to falsify that hypothesis. The CO2=cAGW hypothesis (really, only a conjecture) has been repeatedly contradicted by observations. Therefore, it is false. It is wrong. It’s been debunked by Planet Earth herself.
        So, in honest science it should be ‘back to the drawing board’; discard that failed conjecture, and formulate a new conjecture or hypothesis that takes into account all current information and contradictory observations.
        But the alarmist crowd refuses to admit that their conjecture has been falsified. That would mean the hated skeptics were right all along. Can’t have that, so now they are lying about it outright, and claiming that global warming never stopped.
        But that’s not science. That’s just politics and propaganda. They’ve jettisoned the Scientific Method because it’s too inconvenient; it didn’t give the answers they wanted. So now it’s just the alarmist Narrative and their anti-science talking points.
        The alarmist contingent could still win the political argument. But they have decisively lost the scientific argument.

      • @dbstealey:
        that’s fascinating, but doesn’t answer my question. My question was:
        So: if you’re saying that these ranges are good ones to use for the y-axis, presumably you think that the cooling that Andrew was talking about doesn’t exist? Agree?

        • …if you’re saying that these ranges are good ones to use for the y-axis, presumably you think that the cooling that Andrew was talking about doesn’t exist? Agree?
          alvahillbilly, you’re conflating a chart’s axis with global cooling. Please try to get your thoughts in a coherent order before posting. Thanks.
          And you’re fixated on the axis scale. That is irrelevant. What matters is not the scale, or whether the chart shows global T, or global T anomalies, etc.
          What matters is the trend. And the trend has a major disconnect with the rise in CO2.
          Draw your own conclusions…

    • Chris says:
      You’ve just proven how pointless these graphs are.
      Wrong. YOU have just proven once again that you’ve got nothin’. Nothing but baseless assertions.
      Graphs are produced for a very good reason: they allow the public to see what’s happening — or not happening — at a glance. And what they see is that the alarming predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe are total nonsense.
      Toneb says:
      You seem to think that posting this graph is rather clever and meaningful.
      Another baseless assertion, with nothing of substance beside Toneb’s opinion.
      In fact, that graph is packed with meaning, even though that meaning flew right over Toneb’s head.
      So, what does it mean?
      It means that all the wild-eyed panic eminating from the alarmist crowd is debunked nonsense. The planet has just been through more than a century of the most benign temperatures in the entire geologic record. You cannot find a flatter century long temperature record.
      To people like Toneb that is ‘meaningless’. Why? Because if he admitted that chart had meaning, his entire argument would crash and burn. Which is what’s happening anyway, like it or not.

      • A third grader doing graphs knows enough not to make the Y axis 50-100x larger than the range of the variable being graphed. This is true whether we are talking temperature data, or stock share prices, or the price of tea in China. It doesn’t matter that “someone produced” these graphs, they are useless and a completely transparent attempt to minimize the temperature increases that have occurred. I could minimize the increase in the federal debt by making my Y axis 1000 Trillion dollars – “see, the federal deficit hasn’t changed at all!” But that would be ludicrous, just as your charts are.

  9. The current El Nino has no more to do with average global energy change (temperature change = energy change divided by effective thermal capacitance) than a rogue wave has to do with sea state.

    • Dan
      Agreed.
      Appreciated, too.
      But do try not to battle rogue waves.
      They are ship-breakers.
      I hit a hole in the ocean in 1984 in the North Sea.
      Three wave-trains – and something like a 24 metre – 80 foot – hole in the ocean
      ‘Iolair’ – with green water over the bridge.
      Bottom of the ‘platform’ set up about half a metre.
      We had the naval architects on boars asking about the hundred year wave . . . .
      [Refer above for “[7 billion plus lies]”]
      Auto – still talking to seafarers about the sea.

  10. What part of the EM spectrum does UAH V6 measure and include in its results?Just IR?

    • UAH V6 is not a sensor.
      To see the sensor specs
      Google MSU and AMSU
      basically they are inferring temperature from microwave. Not IR
      If you want IR look at ASTR ( as I recall)

    • What is it about the movement of heat in a climate system that has ~93% of it’s total energy residing in a fluid (the oceans) that would make you expect temperatures to consistently rise month on month (essentially a slightly upwardly sloping straight line.
      2 things.
      1) CO2 is the increasing driver of AGW but there are internal cycles and variability imposed upon the ~7% of the system that receives the bulk of it’s energy (directly from the Sun but ) indirectly from the oceans (globally and seasonally).
      2) would you expect that your house when internally heated not to have deltaT between rooms and therefore draughts?
      I hope your statement is sarcastic and you missed off the (sarc) tag.
      But somehow I think not.
      And, do you know what?
      The ignorance displayed staggers me.

      • I’m just responding to the “more c02 makes it warmer” claim.
        Clearly it doesn’t, according to the chart. We have Global Cooling in the presence of more C02.
        The claim needs to be retracted.
        Andrew

      • I think Bad Andrew is onto something. I think he ought to write a short article about it – the ability to look at the graph and see a clear global cooling trend is quite remarkable.

      • Andrew:
        “Clearly it doesn’t, according to the chart. We have Global Cooling in the presence of more C02.
        The claim needs to be retracted.”
        Staggering denial my friend.
        You conflate a period of slower warming that was caused by a long spell of -ve PDO/ENSO (sorry, cant have it both ways …. if the warming now is due to a EN, now can you?) with CO2 rises, and come up with, well bollocks.
        Like my OP stated , and what those that know the science (indeed you seem to when it explains a warming spell for you).
        The Earth’s climate system MOVES HEAT AROUND.
        There’s actually a good English word for that and it begins with H and ends with a y, oh and the second word is a “y” as well.
        Otherwise …. whatever you say.

    • “the ability to look at the graph and see a clear global cooling trend is quite remarkable”
      I didn’t say I saw a cooling trend.
      I said: “We have Global Cooling in the presence of more C02.”
      Andrew

      • “Preceded by warming, then cooling, then warming, then cooling etc etc etc.”
        Correct. So the phrase “more c02 makes it warmer” is not sufficient to describe what is happening in the chart.
        If increased C02 sometimes results in Global Cooling according to the squiggly line, it logically follows that C02 frequently has no warming effect at all, if the squiggology is that the line going “up” is “warming” and the line going down is “cooling.”
        I want climate science lingo to match what the line actually does, if I’m to begin to take any of it seriously.
        Andrew

      • ‘I want climate science lingo to match what the line actually does, if I’m to begin to take any of it seriously.’
        Have you ever actually done any real science? If you’re saying that theories must always match the wiggles of graphs, that clearly have multiple sources of variability and noise, we’d throw away quite a lot of current science – not just climate science, but the whole lot.
        We cannot measure temperature at every point on the earth. So we make do with a finite number of sensors. Heat moves around, so there is local variability in the readings of these sensors. But if we average all the sensors, we get an approximation to the actual global temp. It won’t ever ever match perfectly the actual global temp, because of the heat flow causing local fluctuations. So we get a noisy estimate.
        Asking a theory to match all the wiggles is impossible and stupid. No theory can ever do that. So you haven’t just ruled out AGW, you’ve ruled out every other possible theory.
        Presumably this is why deniers don’t have an alternative theory, is it? I mean you may drone on about sunspots and all that, but try predicting all those wiggles from sunspots! Or anything else! You can’t.
        No theory can match the wiggles. The fact that you are asking one to, shows very clearly that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and should probably go and learn something somewhere.

    • One of the key factors driving up temperatures during the 2015-16 El Nino is the Arctic. Back in 1998 the Arctic sea ice extent was much larger. This prevented heat loss into the atmosphere. This is a big reason why the NH anomaly is so high now. However, this will equalize a lot more as we get into summer as the Arctic temperature is pretty consistent over the summer months.
      This factor will also become important next winter as the La Nina sets in. Another low sea ice extent would reduce the impact of the La Nina on global temperatures. OTOH, with all the heat loss over the past winter there’s a pretty good chance we won’t see a low summer minimum and the ice could see a large gain by next winter.

  11. Aren’t we 2 degrees above that optimum pre-industrial global temperature? So according to the IPCC and other alarmists we should all be very afraid of floods, droughts, crop failures, millions of climate refugees, coastal areas under water.

  12. Something benben said made me wonder a bit: he seems to believe somehow that every El Nino magnitude is identical, so that a higher peak implies a baseline increase.
    I don’t know of anything that would cause identical magnitudes in separate El Nino events – does anyone else?

    • Hey! thanks for listening. I wouldn’t say identical. It’s randomly distributed. Some will be higher others will be lower. But they should be all over the place, not clearly trending upwards (just look at the last 10 el nino peaks or so)

      • You wrote “If there was no baseline warming then the peak of each el nino would stay the same”.
        “stay the same” is what you claimed. Now you are claiming that they would be “randomly distributed”.
        You have no basis to claim either “stay the same” or “randomly distributed”.
        You wrote “However this peak is higher than previous ones, indicating el nino + baseline warming”
        So, this peak is higher than the previous one. What caused the baseline warming?

      • Toneb,
        If you’re claiming that there is an “AGW signal”, you need to produce measurements quantifying AGW.
        But so far, no one has ever measured AGW, out of all global warming.
        Please don’t make assertions unless you can back them up.

    • Something benben said made me wonder a bit: he seems to believe somehow that every El Nino magnitude is identical, so that a higher peak implies a baseline increase.
      williamhhowell, I hope I inderstand you well and don’t reply with information useless for you.
      Here is a graph comparing, for RSS3.3 TLT, UAH6.0beta5 TLT, and GISS surface, the two strongest El Niños in the last decades (1997/98, 2015/16) from january x till april x+1 of these two periods:
      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160506/t5uhdym8.jpg
      All the data presented have the same baseline (1981-2010).
      1. On the one hand you see that benben’s assumption isn’t quite wrong: everything in 2015/16 looks quite similar, but starts at about 0.4 °C above the 1997/98 stuff.
      2. On the other hand you see that while GISS’ trend is higher for the recent event, the trends for RSS/UAH are higher for 1997/98 than for 2015/16.
      3. And both the RSS and the UAH records show in 1997/98 a second peak in april, what they didn’t for 2015/16 (GISS data for april 16 isn’t available yet).
      4. Interesting details:
      – while surface and TLT differ in trend for 1997/98, they don’t for 2015/16;
      – the UAH and RSS trends for 2015/16 are identical.

  13. The experiment has been done. Either CO2 has no significant effect on temperature or fossil fuels just prevented another LIA.

  14. What was the purpose of posting this at WUWT on 5/5 when Dr. Roy Spencer posted this at drroyspencer.com on 5/2?
    [no link? But, discussing opposite or contrasting ideas is seldom wrong. .mod]
    [This is an impostor pretending to be Don Klipstein. ~another mod]

  15. Back in 2014 some strange things happened to the maps of SST and SST anomalies, particularly in the Pacific ocean.
    For a while it looked like Pacific SSTs, especially north Pacific, were very cool.
    Then there was talk about adjustment and reassigning of the SST baseline period for SSTs.
    Suddenly the Pacific came over all reassuring yellow and orange again.
    Can someone reassure me that the entire recent 2015-2016 peak in global temperature anomalies, from which such a goldmine of political capital has been gained by the catastrophist misanthropes, and which is built primarily on Pacific temperatures, is not simply an artefact of the 2014 readjustment in SST baselines?

  16. I hope we get at least +2C warming from a quadrupling of CO2. I’d hate to think all we get from fossil fuels is abundant cheap energy and a large increase in crop yields. The interglacial is overdue to end, after all. But we’ll never know. We’d only be back to the Holocene Optimum.

    • Don’t wonder if your insurance lets you or your children then pay a quadruple of what you pay today… because reinsurance companies will do the same with their clients 🙂

  17. http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi
    Sorry: this is – as usual – the completely wrong graph.
    1. CET is by no means representative for the planet as a whole, even if both Greenland, the Arctic and CONUS temperatures looked similar at comparable time intervals.
    For example, 1934 was one of the warmest CONUS years, and it was quite warm at that time in Greenland too, but this year is, at planet level, in position 49 in the ranking list. We should always keep in mind that there is this rather cool Southern Hemisphere!
    2. It is really meaningless to compare CO2 emissions with temperatures: about 50% of these emissions after all are stored within the oceans, and only atmospheric CO2 concentration has an influence on global temperatures.
    Even a relation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature increase hasn’t been definitively demonstrated.

  18. Pretty pictures. At least 2-years of sharp global cooling dead ahead. It’s 1998 all over again.

  19. So my previous two posts seem to have mysteriously disappeared… let’s see if this one survives. Here goes:
    Can the [snip . . site rules mean that the use of certain words gets your post put into moderation automatically. The use of the word “denier” is one such word. It sits there till a moderator gets around to checking it out. Your reference to mystery is indicative of a certain amount of unjustified paranoia on your part. If you stick to the site rules your posts will be automatically loaded. Be kind to yourself and read the site rules . . . mod] point me any source of GLOBAL temperature data, over the WHOLE period of 1880-present, or longer, that they are willing to accept.
    Secondly, as dbstealy is saying that theories must match all the little wiggles in the data, is there any conceivable theory that you would ever accept? E.g., if you’re claiming that sunspots are driving the climate, how would they predict all the little wiggles? How would any ever predict all the little wiggles?
    Thanks.

    • Apologies, I didn’t realise some words were off-limits – I should have read the site rules. Sorry about that.

    • The “d’s” are not a club, a group, or a conspiracy and if you want any respect here at all you will stop using the d-word. As far as a global temperature data set that all sceptics would agree on…forget it. Some people here will jump on whatever makes an argument (not unlike you more alarmist types) while some simply don’t trust anything that has been adjusted (lack of trust of the adjusters, see climategate), and some that don’t think the earth’s temperature can be accurately measured.
      So trying to put sceptics in some sort common “all d’s think this” box is really naive. So waving your condescension aside, how would you propose this graph to be constructed? Would it use uninterrupted instrument data that covered the entire globe (including oceans) equally distributed with an overall accuracy tight enough to actually measure theoretical temperature changes caused by man’s release of CO2? Or would you use a consistent proxy or group of proxies that met the above critetia?
      Or
      Could you for one minute be completely honest and admit that the data we have for past global temps is seriously lacking in accuracy and spacial coverage…

      • Well I apologise about the d word, I didn’t realise it was seen as offensive. My mistake.
        I wasn’t trying to pretend that all skeptics are an amorphous blob with identical beliefs. I was actually hoping to get individual responses about what data they were happy to accept. Maybe there would actually be some kind of discussion between them? Maybe if one skeptic is happy with one data source but another thinks it’s rubbish, they could actually discuss that?
        Personally I’m happy with the data we currently have, but I accept that it is problematic. Of course it is lacking in accuracy and coverage. And I’m sure there are conversations about how that might be improved. But I’m highly unconvinced that it’s wrong in a way that it has manufactured a fictitious trend of around 1.4 degrees.
        In any case, we never get perfect data in the real world. And I don’t require perfectly problem-free data when making decisions about other things. The potential risk for runaway climate change is so high that I think it is foolish and dangerous to just assume that there’s no problem here. Most of the responses I’ve had have not been to do with accuracy and coverage BTW, they have been completely blatant attempts to hand-pick subsets of the data, or plot it in a way that you can’t see it.
        I don’t count myself as an alarmist whatever that means, so please don’t put me in that box either. I actually came here because a friend of mine is a real skeptic, and he said that I had preconceptions about skeptic websites being populated by conspiracy theorists. I’m not sure yet who’s right on that one.
        My other point was about theories. Are you really happy with the idea that theories have to fit all the variations and noise? If not, please say so and explain your thinking. This doesn’t have to be a d-people vs alarmist war. If you think that dbstealy was wrong on that, it would be good to say so. If you don’t, I’d be interested to hear why. Otherwise it just looks as though skeptics just close ranks, and behave exactly like the amorphous blob that you’re saying they are not.

      • Well, my career is in aviation and accurate data is all the rage as you could imagine. I am also old enough to remember catastrophic ozone holes, acid rain, pollution induced ice ages, cholesterol, dietary fat, second hand smoke and saccharine. I am also not a scientist and I try to stay out of debating the science even though I have hundreds of hours reading it over the past 11 years.
        You see a high risk of runaway climate change, and I see a stable system regulated with natural negative feedbacks. You see unprecedented weather, and I yawn and find a previous storm that was worse.
        I am a small government, free market-loving classic liberal and you are probably an environmentally conscience, progressive social democrat…I say this because the science is crap and you can draw a line down the middle of this debate idealogically with very few exceptions. If I missed on your politics please accept my apologies.
        On to your point, a theory doesn’t have to be an exact fit but should be consistent over time to be believable. Trenberth, Hansen, Mann, Schmidt and countless others have not only been inconsistent but verifiably wrong, and have shown extreme bias toward an alarmist view. Many sceptical scientists have also been wrong. How much has man affected the climate? I don’t know and science doesn’t know. In the meantime I keep reading and waiting for better science. I like Judith Curry’s take on things, her discussions on uncertainty are worth a read no matter where you stand on the debate.
        Good luck to you and thanks for giving an open mind a shot.
        .

      • Thanks for that 🙂
        it’s nice to get a well-reasoned reply. My background is in machine learning and neuroscience BTW.
        I think what I see is a system that might be in runaway mode, but might also self-correct. But two problems: if it is our CO2 that the principal driver, the runaway looks like it might swamp any self-correction if we carry as usual. The other problem is that the consequence of runaway warming is completely catastrophic. And if we wait until we’re really certain, it could be miles too late to change things. Nonlinear dynamics can be like that.
        To me it’s like your doctor telling you that you have a blood marker that’s increasing, and might indicate cancer. Then again, it might not. And it’s a bit noisy. But if it is cancer and you do nothing, it will likely kill you soon. To make the analogy closer, we’ve got several opinions from other doctors and they all – bar one – tell us the same thing. I’m not sure I’d be quick to dismiss the risk, or argue about the precise details of whether the marker went up or down on a particular day.
        I’ll leave politics out of this if you don’t mind 🙂 Just another distraction.
        Right, I’m off to see what Judith Curry has to say…
        cheers

        • alvahilbilly says:
          I think what I see is a system that might be in runaway mode…
          There is not a shred of evidence showing that. Thus, your argument fails.
          And:
          … as dbstealy is saying that theories must match all the little wiggles in the data…
          When did I ever say that?
          Cut and paste my words verbatim, then we can discuss any differences.

      • @dbstealy:
        these words here:
        “If increased C02 sometimes results in Global Cooling according to the squiggly line, it logically follows that C02 frequently has no warming effect at all, if the squiggology is that the line going “up” is “warming” and the line going down is “cooling.”
        I want climate science lingo to match what the line actually does, if I’m to begin to take any of it seriously.”
        I interpreted that as meaning that the theory had to match the wiggles in the data. Sorry if I got that wrong – what did you mean then?

      • “if it is our CO2 that the principal driver, the runaway looks like it might swamp any self-correction if we carry as usual”
        alvahillbilly, looks like andrew is getting a bad rap without being here to defend himself
        {8^) -|–<
        The carbon growth rate has been tracking with temperature since the inception of the mauna loa observatory data set 58 years ago:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1958/scale:0.31/offset:0.09
        If the past is any indication of the future, "business as usual" won't have any more impact on the carbon growth rate. It would also mean that efforts to reduce human emissions won't have any impact on the carbon growth rate either…

      • @afonzarelli:
        Has Andrew left the forum? If not, he can respond just like anyone else – just like you’ve done, right now.
        I don’t know what your graph is because there’s no labels – it’s some data and its derivative? Who knows. In any case the graph clearly has an upward trend.
        If temperatures and CO2 concentrations seem to be correlated – which they are – it suggests that they may be causally related.
        It’s difficult to see how CO2 concentrations would to totally unrelated to human emissions. You’re saying that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is totally unrelated to how much CO2 we release? How could that be?

      • Just taking advantage of andrew there by interjecting a little jocularity. (it actually had nothing to do with my point)…
        Great comment and great questions that you ask here… The vertical axis is the growth rate of atmoshperic CO2 in parts per million PER MONTH. (so you’d have to multiply that number by 12 to get the yearly growth rate) The temperature is the hadcrut4 SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE data which is a very good match with the global satellite data (which only go back to 1979). Unfortunately, wood for trees only allows for scaling of one of the two. To get an estimate, you might just try comparing that hadcrut4sh data with Dr Spencer’s graph. (as i said, i would have used his but it doesn’t go back all the way to 1958)…
        “Your saying that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is totally unrelated to how much CO2 we release ? How can that be?”
        Yours is the million dollar question… There are a couple of exceedingly brilliant people who debate this very point right here at WUWT. But, they can never get beyond disagreeing whether or not the correlation is spurious (meaning false) despite my pleading for them to do so. Your questions really are beyond me, but here’s what i do think i can say: If two data sets are lock step for over half a century, chances are the correlation will continue. (i found this out in ’08 and haven’t been disappointed yet) It seems that one of two things would have to be happening here. Either we have an anthropogenic rise which is being highly regulated by temperature (probably due to the fluctuation of temperatures influencing the anthropogenic sink rate mainly in the oceans). OR the rise is natural, meaning that instead of the anthro sink rate being roughly 50%, it’s a lot closer to 100% and a temperature driven imbalance such as henry’s law is the cause of the rise. While deeper ice core data would appear to refute this, shallow (high resolution) ice cores tend to show much greater variability of carbon growth than anthro emissions can explain. As well, C13 data going back hundreds of years also indicate that a warming world would imitate the anthropogenic C13 “finger print”. Which of the two is correct IS the big QUE. That’s why i always try to coach my initial point as delicately as i can. If the carbon growth rate continues to track with temperature going into the future (especially if we see cooling), then sooner or later policy makers will be forced to take notice…

      • @afonzarelli
        Thanks for your reply 🙂
        Ok, thats’ given me a lot to think about… I shall go and do that. My understanding is that the following things are pretty much accepted:
        global temp has a significant upwards trend over the past 100 years or so
        atmospheric CO2 is up
        CO2 in plants is up
        pH in top ocean layer is down, which could be due to increase CO2 being dissolved. Of course it may not, but it is suspicious.
        human-caused CO2 emissions are positive and increasing. All that carbon has to go somewhere.
        I don’t see any reason at the moment to rule out AGW. But there may be other explanations.
        @dbstealey:
        I know you’ve made some comments about Feynman and Popper, and probably want to jump in and say that AGW is already falsified. I’ll respond to that later, but the problem is around how to do falsification when the area is noisy and probabilistic. There’s been a lot of criticism of Popper because of exactly that.

      • hillbilly says:
        I know you’ve made some comments about Feynman and Popper, and probably want to jump in and say that AGW is already falsified.
        Wrong, as usual. I have never said that AGW is falsified. I’ve always stated that I think AGW exists.
        However, since there have never been any empirical, testable, and verified measurements quantifying the fraction of AGW out of all global warming, the conclusion is obvious: AGW is too small to measure with current instruments. Furthermore, the rise in CO2 has been only one part in 10,000, over the past century+. That minuscule rise is claimed to be the cause of just about every current observation: Arctic ice fluctuations, and the claimed decimation of Polar bears, and accelerating sea levels rise (which is not happening), and extreme weather events (which have been moderating decade over decade); and it is the basis of the ridiculous “carbon” scare.
        That tiny rise of one part in 10,000 supports the skeptics’ view that AGW is a complete non-problem. It is only a minuscule 3rd-order forcing, which is swamped by larger 2nd-order forcings. Thiose in turn are both are swamped by much larger 1st-order forcings (cf: Willis Eschenbach). Both 1st- and 2nd-order forcings are natural; we can do nothing about them. We acan likewise do nothing about the rise in CO2 from China, India, Russia, and a hundred other countries. But somehow, the focus is always on the US and the West (in the US, CO2 emissions have actually begun to decline):
        https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/screen-shot-2015-03-03-at-07-26-30.png
        The central premise and predictions of the climate alarmist crowd stated that human CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming, leading to climate catastrophe. Since it is clear that was wrong, they’ve backtracked, and they now refer to ‘runaway global warming’ as “climate change”; a vague and meaningless phrase which can mean anything — or nothing at all.
        Finally, we have learned much more over the past several decades based on empirical observations, and one thing has become abundantly clear: the rise in CO2 has been very beneficial to the biosphere. The planet is measurably greening as a direct result of more CO2. Agricultural productivity is rising in lockstep with rising CO2, thus food costs are being held down — a life-saving benefit for the one-third of humanity subsiting on less than $2 a day.
        We have also found that more CO2 is completely harmless; more CO2 is beneficial, and there is no observed downside. More CO2 has been a net benefit, with no global damage, or global harm due to the rise in that tiny trace gas, which is as necessary to life on earth as H2O. Thus, we can confidently state that more CO2 is “harmless”.
        Since you’re new here you may not have been aware of my position in this debate. There it is. I’ve not changed that position over the years. It’s always been exactly as stated here. So once again, please don’t put words in my mouth, or presume to know what I’m thinking. Instead, quote my words verbatim, by cutting and pasting them. That way you won’t get off on the wrong foot like you did here, by assuming something not in evidence.

      • “All that carbon has to go somewhere.”
        Yes, and i think that this is the danger of how AGW is shaking out politically. If AGW is falsified or it becomes crystal clear that there is not much we can do about it (as perhaps carbon growth rates tracking temps suggests) then AGW may well fade away politically. This actually happened with the global cooling scare back in the 1970s, so this would not be unprecedented. We still have the problems of how all this extra CO2 may be effecting ecosystems. (for example, wuwt did a piece recently on how excess growth is diluting protein ratios in plants) If AGW goes away, it may affect the political impetus to deal with any of these side issues. As is, we’re having a difficult enough time in doing anything about fossil fuels anyway. That’s why the importance of honest debate and good governance must rule the day (as the unintended consequences of bad politics may well be huge)…

      • @dbstealey:
        what you said was:
        “As Prof Richard Feynman (and Einstein, and Popper, and Langmuir, and many others) have pointed out: when a hypothesis is contradicted by real world observations, the hypothesis is wrong. It is falsified.
        That’s all there is to it — and it doesn’t require lots of examples. Just one observation that contradicts a hypothesis is enough to falsify that hypothesis. The CO2=cAGW hypothesis (really, only a conjecture) has been repeatedly contradicted by observations. Therefore, it is false. It is wrong. It’s been debunked by Planet Earth herself.”
        that sounded to me as though you were claiming AGW had been falsified. Reading it back now, it still sounds like that. Obviously I’ve misunderstood, but I’m not sure that I’m really ‘putting words in your mouth’.
        you say:
        “Furthermore, the rise in CO2 has been only one part in 10,000, over the past century+.”
        what do you mean? The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has gone from about 290 ppm to over 400. If you’re saying that the concentration of CO2 is so low that it can’t affect the climate, then you are contradicting every climate scientist that I’ve read. Is that what you’re saying?
        you say
        ‘More CO2 has been a net benefit, with no global damage, or global harm due to the rise in that tiny trace gas, which is as necessary to life on earth as H2O. Thus, we can confidently state that more CO2 is “harmless”.’
        Well that’s your opinion. As you know, many cilmate scientists believe that there are many downsides, including:
        loss of ice leading to large increases in sea level, making many cities unviable.
        increase in sea temperature, and increase in sea acidity, possible causing large scale extinctions.
        You may think they’re wrong, but that is their view. And your view is only your view, Your view is not an established fact.
        you said:
        “You are trying to put the onus on skeptics of the “dangerous AGW” scare. That’s wrong. Skeptics have nothing to prove.”
        I did no such thing. Please post my own words where I tried to put the onus onto anyone. Now it’s you putting words in my mouth. In fact I’m just trying to understand the science. I think we all have a responsibility to do that.
        You said:
        “Every scary and alarming prediction made by the alarmist crowd has turned out to be flat wrong. When someone makes numerous alarming predictions, and they all turn out to be wrong — contradicted by observations — then that side has lost the science debate.”
        I disagree. They predicted that global temperatures would rise, and they have. You may not think that’s scary, but I do. And I’m entitled to that opinion. The plain fact is that temperatures have risen.
        you said:
        “So the question is this: which side are you on? Are you a scientific skeptic (the only honest kind of scientist, or student of science)? Or, are you happy to promote the new alarmist propaganda talking points?”
        Neither. I can take any position I want. I’m just trying to understand. I feel no obligation to take sides, and it’s nothing to do with you whether I do or not.

        • alva hillbilly said:
          that sounded to me as though you were claiming AGW had been falsified.
          The hypothesis, as I’ve repeatedly stated, is the CO2=cAGW conjecture. That is what I am responding to, not whatever else you fabricate or read into it. You re-posted my words without mentioning the hypothesis I was commenting on. That shows me you’re looking for something, anything, that will rescue your point of view.
          I’m careful when I comment. You’re just not very careful when you read my comments. You read things into them that are simply not there. You repeatedly confuse my comments with Andrew’s.
          As I’ve stated for many years: I think AGW exists. I have never said anything different. And yes, that’s just my opinion, because there are no measurements quantifying AGW. No one has ever produced any such measurements. So it’s all opinion.
          I’m a skeptic; I have nothing to prove. But as you point out, there are alarmist opinions. The fly in the ointment for them is that there are no credible measurments quantifying AGW. You can’t falsify something that you can’t measure. So yes, you were putting words in my mouth — again.
          Next, your arithmetic-fu is lacking if you can’t see that a rise from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is exactly the same as a rise of one part in ten thousand. Alarmists like to use parts per million because “million” sounds scary. And I’m getting tired of your comments like: “…if that’s what you’re saying”. I write what I’m saying, no more and no less. Try to pay attention, without reading other things into my comments.
          What I wrote in the next paragraph is not my “opinion”, it is an accepted fact; CO2 is as necessary to life on earth as H2O. But if you can identify any global damage, or harm as a result of the rise in CO2, then post it here. Finally, I reject your vague, “many climate scientists believe”. Post facts, not your opinion of what other folks’ opinions might be.
          Next, global sea ice is right at its long term average. The alarming predictions were that global ice would melt due to global warming. But that did not happen. So they backtracked, to “Arctic” ice. But since the debate is about global warming, cherry-picking only the Arctic is simply deflection.
          Next, the oceans are not “acidifying”. Do a search for ‘acidifying’ here. You will find reams of discussion falsifying the “acidifying” nonsense.
          Possibly a flying saucer will come and rescue the True Believers; and just as “possibly”, there will be your “large scale extinctions”. But there’s no sign of either large scale extinctions or flying saucers, so maybe you’re on the wrong site. We like to stick with verifiable science here, not speculative “What Ifs”. The fact that there are no large scale extinctions due to CO2 is accepted science. It’s not an opinion. Prove me wrong, if you can: identify any large scale extinctions due to the rise in CO2.
          Next, if you’re truly “trying to understand the science”, the place to start is to be skeptical of all claims, unless they are corroborated by the real world, or by undeniable facts, or by verifiable evidence and observations. But mere assertions should be looked upon with a jaundiced eye.
          Next, once again you are reading assumptions into what I wrote, by commenting on things that I never mentioned. That’s called a ‘strawman’ argument: setting up a false argument, then arguing with it. It is a logical fallacy. So please try to pay attention. I pointed out that not one scary, alarming prediction has ever come true. If you disagree, name one. There are plenty to pick from: Polar bears, Tuvalu and Florida being submerged, vanishing glaciers, extreme weather events, accelerating sea level rise, etc. &etc.
          And of course there has been global warming. That’s not in dispute. But we’re trying to determine the cause, and so far, natural variability and the planet’s natural recovery from the Little Ice Age — one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,000+ year long Holocene — is the most reasonable answer.
          Occam’s Razor states that extraneous variables should be discarded, and that the simplest answer is most likely the best answer. Natural climate variability, and the planet’s recovery from the LIA are the simplest explanations; there is no need to invoke extraneous variables such as CO2.
          I could also “predict” that global T will continue to rise — until it doesn’t. Then it will flatten, or decline. But as I do not make predictions like that, that’s just my opinion. Again, it’s the cause that’s in question, not the observation of what are most likely natural events.
          Finally, by admitting you’re not a skeptic, you have, in fact, taken sides. Because the only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic. If you look at the alarmist crowd, you will not find a single scientific skeptic among them. Not one.
          Skepticism is what brings about progress in science. When the smoke clears, the only hypotheses that remain standing are those that have withstood all-out attacks by scientific skeptics. What remains is as close to scienitific veracity as we can currently get.
          In science, if you want to get to the truth of the matter, you must be a skeptic. There is far too much easy grant money — more than a $Billion every year is shoveled into “studying climate change” — to assume that there aren’t ulterior motives, fueled by greed and ambition, among those sounding the “carbon” false alarm. That much money buys whole a lot of ‘opinions’. And those grants go into the pockets of scientists and organizations that promote the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare, while sceptical scientists hardly get the crumbs.
          Bottom line: if you’re not a skeptic, you’re just another eco-acolyte in Algore’s Church of Globaloney Warming. Your mind is already made up, and you’re just looking for cherry-picked factoids that feed your confirmation bias.

      • @db:
        “And I’m getting tired of your comments like: “…if that’s what you’re saying”. I write what I’m saying, no more and no less. Try to pay atention, and don’t read other things into it.”
        I also asked whether that was what you were saying. You didn’t answer. I’ll try again:
        Are you claiming that CO2 concentration is so low that it can’t affect the climate? Are you claiming that a change of 290 ppm to 400 ppm could not affect the climate?
        From now on I will make no inferences about what you’re saying at all.
        I will shortly provide a source that shows that the pH of the surface layers of the ocean have indeed reduced.
        The harmful effects of CO2 are that it causes climate change (hypothesised. And rejected by some people). I am aware that CO2 is essential for life. The fact that CO2 is essential for life does not rule out the possibility that increasing it quickly can cause climate change.
        As for the word ‘skeptic’. In the normal use of the word, yes I am a skeptic. That is, I am skeptical about the conventional view on AGW. I am also skeptical on the views expressed here, including yours. Unfortunately the word ‘skeptic’ has several different meanings in climate science. Some people use it to mean ‘someone who absolutely rejects the conventional view on climate change’. I’m not one of those. Hopefully that’s cleared that one up.

        • alvahillbilly says:
          Are you claiming that a change of 290 ppm to 400 ppm could not affect the climate?
          Correctomundo. More accurately: that change does not measurably affect global T.
          From current concentrations (≈400 ppm), CO2 could rise by 10%, or 20%, or 50%, and it would cause no measurable global warming. Does that answer your question?
          CO2 has a log effect on temperature:
          https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
          If you extrapolate from the current 400 ppm and add, say, another 100 ppm, or 200 ppm, how much warming would that cause? Look closely at the chart. You can figure it out.
          Answer: the warming would be too small to measure.
          I trust that settles the question. CO2 is a non-problem. It is just a tiny trace gas. If it were not for sensitive instruments, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between 300 ppm and 400 ppm. Plants could tell. But you couldn’t.
          The “carbon” scare is based upon a series of false assumptions. Any scientific skeptic would look at all available evidence and observations, and promptly reject the conjecture that more CO2 is a problem.
          It isn’t. More CO2 is a net benefit, with no observed downside.

      • @dbstealey
        And a graph, which is a fake again: It presents ~0,3 Celcius degree per doubling of CO2 concentration.

        • The moderator is right. Baseless assertions like yours mean nothing. Post verifiable facts.
          That graph was posted in 2010, on this site. Do a search, and you can find it. You’re the only one (besides the hillbilly) who questions its veracity. But all you’ve got is your baseless opinion. Everyone’s got those. But they mean nothing unless you can support your contention that the chart isn’t accurate.

        • Chris,
          your link admits:
          …scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires.
          That is hardly a testable, verifiable ‘measurement’. They are attributing CO2 forcing to fossil fuel use. What they’re doing is making assertions; they’re not posting verifiable measurements. In fact, there is not one measurement of AGW in the entire link.
          All they assert is that “CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick…” That’s not a measurement. That’s just an opinion, nothing more. And since it came from B.E.S.T., I wouldn’t put much credence in it:
          https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/article-2055191-0e974b4300000578-216_468x4731.jpg
          If they could post a definitive measurement quantifying AGW, among other things there would be headlines in every major newspaper, and the Nobel committee would be meeting, and we would be able to precisely predict the amount of global warming per X amount of CO2 emitted.
          None of that is happening. In fact, no one was able to predict the most significant global temperature event of the past century: the fact that global warming stopped for alomost twenty years (the ‘pause’, ‘hiatus’, etc).
          You can believe press releases if you want. I’ll believe it when internationally respected scientists like Prof Richard Lindzen state that they’ve accurately measured AGW.

      • dbstealey said: “That is hardly a testable, verifiable ‘measurement’.’
        If you are insisting on a measurement for which all other possible sources other than CO2 are eliminated, then you are asking for something that can’t be done. Just as we can’t isolate the exact impact of El Nino compared to the other factors just as aerosols, volcanoes, change in solar insolation, etc, we can’t remove all other factors from the earth and only view the impact of CO2. The same is true for estimating the gravitational forces of various planets on each other – you can’t remove all but the one you want. So you are saying that the way that science is being done in all of these fields in invalid.

        • If you are insisting on a measurement for which all other possible sources other than CO2 are eliminated, then you are asking for something that can’t be done.
          Wrong, as usual. Furthermore, there are no measurements quantifying AGW.
          Those kind of excuses don’t fly in science. They’re tantamount to throwing up your hands and giving up.
          There are no measurements of AGW for the reason I give you constantly: AGW is simply to minuuscule to measure. It’s there, but it’s just too small to quantify.
          If it wasn’t, it would be quantified with measurements.
          The proof is in the fact that despite a rather large rise in CO2, global warming has not accelerated. In fact, it stopped for almost twenty years — unlike your eco-religious belief, which has never stopped despite all the contrary evidence.

    • alvahillbilly says:
      …as dbstealy is saying that theories must match all the little wiggles in the data…
      I have never said that. Please stop inventing your strawman arguments. If you’ve got nothin’, just read the comments, don’t post your fabrications.

      • Calm down dude, I already said above that it was my mistake in thinking you said that. It was Andrew who said that. I’ve already apologised for that.

      • So, what do you think about the chart above? Does that clarify the situation? Does it help to explain why there’s been no measurable global warming despite the steady rise in CO2? Do you see why the alarmist cult was so wrong about their “carbon” scare?

      • @db
        “So, what do you think about the chart above? Does that clarify the situation? ”
        Where does that graph come from? I doubt its accuracy very much.

      • alvahillbilly,
        That chart was posted on this site six years ago. Use the search box, you can find the article and comments.
        You will notice that in hundreds of comments, no one questions the chart. You just don’t like it because it debunks the “carbon” scare. But unless you can show conclusively that it’s wrong, your opinion carries no weight.

      • dbstealey says:
        “You will notice that in hundreds of comments, no one questions the chart. You just don’t like it because it debunks the “carbon” scare. But unless you can show conclusively that it’s wrong, your opinion carries no weight.”
        Why does your opinion carry any weight? You won’t post the source of your charts, and we’re supposed to take it at face value just because you say so? That’s not science, in fact that’s the opposite of science, unless your definition of science is “Believe this because I say it’s true.”

      • @db
        I already found that graph on this site. Where does it originate? Did someone just draw it, or is from data, or an equation, or an AI graph-drawing bot??
        The fact that you are appealing to ‘You will notice that in hundreds of comments, no one questions the chart’ is worrying. I thought we were supposed to be skeptics?

      • Chris says:
        Why does your opinion carry any weight?
        I explained, but it clearly went right over your head:
        …in hundreds of comments, no one questioned the chart. You just don’t like it because it debunks the “carbon” scare. But unless you can show conclusively that it’s wrong, your opinion carries no weight.
        You and the hillbilly seem to be the only ones who can’t find the source of a chart with a single click. If you had clicked on the chart you would have seen that it was posted in an article here in October 2011.
        But the issue isn’t where the chart came from, it’s your baseless claim that there’s anything wrong with it. If you suspect there is, you need to do some research and find out. Just saying “we’re supposed to take it at face value just because you say so” means you’ve got nothin’ — as usual. Who really cares if you don’t believe it? Who are you, anyway, but an anonymous commenter?
        Alvahillbilly is arguing the same strawman. If there’s something wrong with the B.E.S.T. chart, post it here. But I should warn you: Steven Mosher is a member of the B.E.S.T. team. I’ve posted that chart for him several times, and discussed it with him. He has never said it’s not based on accurate data.
        The problem with both of you is that your minds are already made up. Neither one of you is a scientific skeptic. You believe in the CO2=cAGW conjecture, despite the fact that there are no corroborating measurements, and the real world is not acting anything like it would if that conjecture was valid.
        ALL available evidence supports the view that the rise in CO2 is completely harmless, and very beneficial to the biosphere. There is no observed downside to more CO2, which is every bit as essential to life on earth as H2O. In the past, CO2 has been more than 15X current levels, without ever causing global warming.
        Rational folks have already accepted skeptics’ arguments. You won’t, for whatever reason. But skeptics have already won the science debate. That leaves politics, payola, and propaganda. And the green eco-religion that has bamboozled so many folks.

      • @ dB
        I ask where a chart comes from, and get yet another tirade from you. It’s unbelievable. If no one here ever asks where plots have come from, they’re not being very skeptical.
        Let’s try again: where does the chart come from? What is the data source? Why does this simple question get such a response from you. I don’t get it. You’re reinforcing every prejudice about climate skeptics.

        • alvahillbilly,
          Please do your own homework. I could do it for you, but you can just as easily research the same data.
          You have no credible answer, so you baselessly question anything provided. That’s because your eco-belief won’t allow you to accept the fact that the evidence for what you believe is lacking.

        • Here is another chart from the WoodForTrees database. It corroborates the B.E.S.T. chart I posted, and it extends to a more recent year (through 2015).
          Notice that the longer term trend was broken in ≈2005. Global T declined somewhat since then, which puts another nail in the coffin of catastrophic AGW.
          I know this won’t make the slightest impact on the true believers in the alarmist cult. They don’t care about scientific veracity anyway. They just believe.

      • alva, you won’t get a source out of db. I asked him once before about another chart, and he said “it was in a folder on my computer” – really and truly, that’s what he said.

        • Chris,
          What’s wrong with that?
          You constantly emit baseless opinions, which are certainly more questionable than re-posting someone’s chart.
          You just don’t like to admit that all you’ve got is your belief. You have no credible evidence showing that dangerous AGW exists. Do you?
          If you do, post it here.

      • @db
        So basically you’re not willing to say where the data in that chart came from. I’m just going to ignore it then.

        • I’ll ignore you, too, since you can’t produce a shred of evidence to support your eco-belief system. It’s interesting that out of all the dozens (hundreds, really) of charts I’ve linked to, you’re only fixated on one. That sure smells like a “gotcha” which you’re using in place of having a worthwhile argument.
          You have a hard time understanding anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived beliefs. When you write something you can’t support with real world evidence, I will be certain to put you in your place — at the back of the class, facing the corner and with your dunce cap on.
          You don’t like it? Then either produce credible evidence of the eco-nonsense you’re trying to peddle here, or admit you don’t have any. Then we’ll get along fine.
          BTW, you never responded to my comment that the person who would know more than you will ever learn, and a member of the B.E.S.T. team, has never said that chart is based on wrong data.
          BTW, here is another chart that shows the same thing as the B.E.S.T. chart, and it’s more up to date. Let’s see you nitpick that one.
          Trot along now back to ‘skepticalscience’, or wherever you get your misinformation from. You’re in over your head here.

      • Here is another chart from the WoodForTrees database. It corroborates the B.E.S.T. chart I posted, and it extends to a more recent year (through 2015).

        This graph actually ends in May 2010, regardless what final date you put in. And they made a glaring error in the end where I understand they just had Antarctic data to cause a huge drop that has long been fixed, but WFT has not updated BEST since May 2010!!!
        Check the “raw data” to verify what I just said. Or look at the graph itself. It never reaches 2012.
        If you want to see an up to date BEST, you need to go here:
        http://moyhu.blogspot.ca/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html

      • Werner,
        Thanks for that. I just put in the current full year in Wood For Trees, not realizing that BEST had stopped in 2010.
        My point remains, though. Hillbilly and Chris are nitpicking that one chart, out of many that I’ve posted, because I said it was in a folder with other charts but I had forgotten where I had found it. They’re nitpicking that one chart because that’s all they’ve got to try and rescue their losing argument.

  20. Comments section of WUWT used to be fun. All there seems to be these days is trolls whining.

    • @Andrew:
      so, as I said, you’ve ruled out not just AGW, but every other candidate theory. So there’s no point claiming that the current warming is caused by sunspots or anything else, is there?

    • “so, as I said, you’ve ruled out not just AGW, but every other candidate theory”
      No, you just did. The wiggles are what happens. You just stated no theory can match them. I agree.
      Andrew

      • So you agree that no theory can match the wiggles? So no theory can be good enough? I genuinely don’t understand what you’re saying now.

        • alvahillbilly,
          Tiny wiggles are irrelevant. The trend is what matters. For most of the past 20 years, the trend has been flat, while CO2 has steadily risen — thus debunking the CO2=cAGW conjecture.
          In fact, over the past century, almost half of the decades show global cooling. How do you explain that, from the standpoint of the CO2=AGW conjecture? Do we discard the inconvenient cooling decades? Do we create a deus ex machina ad-hoc explanation?
          Or do we finally acknowledge that CO2 lacks nearly all the warming effect claimed by the alarmist contingent?
          And:
          So no theory can be good enough? I genuinely don’t understand what you’re saying now.
          You have a hard time understanding anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived beliefs. And skeptics do not claim to have a “theory”. That’s what the alarmist crowd claims.
          For the umpteenth time: skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on those putting forth a conjecture, hypothesis, or theory. The alarmist crowd’s conjecture claims that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming, leading to climate catastrophe (that is now hidden behind Orwell-style “climate change” word-morphing).
          But the alarmist contingent is incapable of supporting their conjecture with credible evidence, measurements, or observations. All they do is hand-wave.
          In any of the hard science disciplines, that failure would cause the conjecture to be defenestrated. It has been falsified by Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority.
          The question is: why do you reject what Planet Earth is telling us?

      • @db:
        this is confusing, because I was talking to Andrew in that comment. He thinks that theory should match all the wiggles in the data, including the noise.
        However, you said:
        “For most of the past 20 years, the trend has been flat, while CO2 has steadily risen — thus debunking the CO2=cAGW conjecture.”
        whereas I’m saying, for the past 220 years, the trend has clearly been up, whilst CO2 has steadily risen. The way I explain the high frequency variations is that they are noise.
        Question for you: how do you explain the upwards trend in global T over the past 220 years? Do you have any explanation?
        You said:
        “You have a hard time understanding anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived beliefs. And skeptics do not claim to have a “theory”. That’s what the alarmist crowd claims.”
        You are confused. I did not say skeptics have a theory, Currently it looks to me as though they have no plausible explanation whatsoever for the data. I was making a point to Andrew, in my conversation thread with Andrew, that if you expect a theory to match the noise you will reject all theories. How many more times do I have to explain this very basic point?

        • alvahillbilly,
          The upward trend in global T is the result of the planet’s natural recovery from the LIA. In other words, reversion to the mean. And it may well overshoot. But there is no credible evidence that global warming is due to human CO2 emissions.
          Next, there is no “theory” of AGW. Like a conjecture or an hypothesis, a theory must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions.
          But the AGW “theory” (actually, AGW is only a measurement-free conjecture) has never been able to make any accurate predictions regarding global T. In fact, AGW “theory” was unable to predict the most significant event of the past century: the fact that global warming stopped for almost twenty years. That monumental failure falsifies the CO2=AGW conjecture — for reasons already detailed.
          You’re looking for something that would rescue your belief in man-made global warming. If you find credible evidence (preferably verifiable, testable measurements of AGW), you can change my mind. But so far, skeptics have demolished the “dangerous AGW” narrative. It is no more than vague hand-waving, and it lacks the basic requirement of data (measurements).

      • @db:
        and by the way, please stop posting this kind of crap:
        ““You have a hard time understanding anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived beliefs.”
        I could easily just say the same about you. I’m willing to admit that current theories of climate change could be wrong. Are you open to the possibility that they might be right? No, of course not. So you are more closed-minded than me.

      • @db
        “The upward trend in global T is the result of the planet’s natural recovery from the LIA. In other words, reversion to the mean. And it may well overshoot. But there is no credible evidence that global warming is due to human CO2 emissions.”
        That’s not an explanation, it’s a description of the data. It makes no predictions. It may overshoot, It may undershoot. It may do just about anything.

      • @db
        ” If you find credible evidence (preferably verifiable, testable measurements of AGW), you can change my mind. ”
        What evidence would change your mind? What would it look like?

      • alvahillbilly, according to the ipcc, as little as half of recent warming could be due to agw. The ipcc lays no claim on prior warming as warming from anthropogenic CO2 (and it’s forcings) would have been negligible. If the warming from the LIA has been about 1C and half of recent warming is .2C, then most all of the warming of the last couple centuries has been natural. This according to the ipcc… Now, the thinking on the origin of the rise (and this is mainstream science) is a reduction in volcanic activity, solar forcings, and CO2, a large chunk of which would be due to a natural rise in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans…

      • alvahillbilly says:
        What evidence would change your mind? What would it look like?
        As I’ve stated repeatedly, if you can produce testable, empirical measurements quantifying the fraction of AGW out of all global warming, that would convince me. If you could make repeated, accurate predictions of future global warming (or cooling, etc.), that would convince me.
        Or, if global temperatures tracked the rise in CO2, that would be convincing. But they don’t.
        Next, you say:
        That’s not an explanation, it’s a description of the data.
        You’re pretty clueless, but then you’re a hillbilly. Data is used to describe reality. Sorry you can’t understand that simple concept.
        Next, you complain that I pointed out:
        (Global T) makes no predictions. It may overshoot, It may undershoot. It may do just about anything.
        You don’t like the fact that skeptics won’t make predictions. That’s because every alarming prediction made by your side has been flat wrong. No exceptions. I pointed out that we don’t know the future.
        Your lame attempts to try and corner me are amusing. You have a long way to go before you even understand this subject, but already you’re looking for “gotchas”. Pretty pathetic. But then, your whole belief system is pathetic.

    • “So no theory can be good enough?”
      In your words, no theory can match the wiggles. Thay means no theory has been offered to explain the wiggly line, because it’s all wiggles.
      Andrew

      • What I clearly said earlier on was that it was ridiculous to expect a theory to match the wiggles. So ruling out theories that don’t match the wiggles was daft, because it rules out all possible theories.
        So: would you agree that sunspots can’t possibly explain the data? There’s no way that sunspot data can reproduce those wiggles.

      • “So: would you agree that sunspots can’t possibly explain the data?”
        As you beautifully stated earlier:
        “No theory can match the wiggles.”
        Andrew

      • Let me put it another way:
        If Climate Science is going to put forth a squiggly line they can’t explain, they should just say so.
        Andrew

      • Many many areas of science put forward squiggly lines that they can’t explain. It’s called noise. Nobody expects a theory to be able to reproduce the noise. I think climate scientists probably assume that people understand this.

      • “I think climate scientists probably assume that people understand this.”
        Why would climate scientists assume anything? They should just state what it is they are presenting. Not only do they not explain what they present, they don’t understand it to explain it.
        If you are correct and it is ‘noise’, the squiggly line should be labeled as ‘noise’.
        Andrew

      • Normally papers are written for other scientists, and they tend to assume that the reader knows how research works. Otherwise every paper would have to have a huge introduction explaining every little thing.
        When you have experimental data, generally there is some underlying pattern (well hopefully there is), but the pattern has got noise added on top of it. The noise can come from any number of sources. The challenge of theory is to capture the patterns, not the noise. The reason is that the noise is going to be different every time you run the experiment. But hopefully the pattern will remain. That’s why no one expects theory to match each precise wiggle of the data. It’s also why people fit curves to data.

      • “Normally papers are written for other scientists”
        If John Q. Public is suppsed to accept a scientific idea, the science needs to be presented to them straightforwardly, however in Climate Science, it isn’t, as our discussion has illustrated (again). That’s a problem. Anyone who scrutinizes Climate Science for more than 10 minutes, sees that.
        Andrew

      • You have a very good point, but the same would apply to just about any other area of science. How publicly accessible is genetics research? Or neuroscience? Or physics?
        The truth is that it’s incredibly hard to communicate complex ideas in a simple way. From the little I’ve read, the earth’s climate is a pretty complex nonlinear dynamic system, and I think it’s far from obvious how to explain to the public. I do agree that far more effort needs to go into this though.
        Ok, I finally understand what you were saying. And I agree: much better explanations are needed. Good point.

      • “And I agree: much better explanations are needed. Good point.”
        The easiest thing to do is when you present inexplicable squiggly line that no theory can match, state that it’s an inexplicable squiggly line that no theory can match.
        Andrew

      • @Andrew:
        ” state that it’s an inexplicable squiggly line that no theory can match.”
        Or more correctly, theory can (and does) match the trend, but not the noise.

      • alvahillbilly says:
        Or more correctly, theory can (and does) match the trend, but not the noise.
        In reality, the ‘theory’ does not match the trend.
        The ‘theory’, as you call it, stated that rising CO2 will cause global temperature to rise. But for most of the past twenty years, global T was flat, while CO2 substantially increased year over year.
        Thus, the ‘theory’ is wrong. The real world falsified it.
        Formulate a new hypothesis, taking into account the failure of rising CO2 to cause merasurable global warming. That’s the Scientific Method — which does not tell you to dig in your heels and incessantly argue about something that has been repeatedly falsified.

  21. alvahillbilly, this is in respose to your comment:
    …the problem is around how to do falsification when the area is noisy and probabilistic. There’s been a lot of criticism of Popper because of exactly that.
    No, the problem is that the onus is on those making a conjecture or hypothesis. You are trying to put the onus on skeptics of the “dangerous AGW” scare. That’s wrong. Skeptics have nothing to prove.
    Falsification (testability) is necessary to rule out various assumptions. The basis for the debate comes down to the climate Null Hypothesis: whether we can measure changes in various parameters (most importantly, in global T) that cannot be attributed to natural variability.
    So far, the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Everything observed now has also been observed in the past, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree — and before human CO2 emissions were a factor.
    In fact, for the past century+ the planet has been in a true “Goldilocks” temperature range:
    http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg
    Every scary and alarming prediction made by the alarmist crowd has turned out to be flat wrong. When someone makes numerous alarming predictions, and they all turn out to be wrong — contradicted by observations — then that side has lost the science debate.
    One requirement in common with every step in the hierarchy: ‘Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law’, is that they all must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. If they fail to do that, the conjecture, hypothesis, etc., has been falsified.
    At that point, those who produced the falsified hypothesis must discard it, and try to figure out why it failed. Then they should produce a new hypothesis, taking into account all new evidence and observations, including the fact that their old and busted hypothesis repeatedly failed to make accurate predictions.
    But the alarmist crowd drops the ball at this point, and veers off into anti-science; rather than admit they were wrong, they double down and insist that, despite the failure of their conjecture, their ‘dangerous AGW’ conjecture must be accepted anyway.
    They do this now by lying outright: for almost twenty years scientists on all sides of the ‘global warming’ debate were in agreement that global warming had ‘paused’; that global warming had stopped. That global warming was in a long term ‘hiatus’. As recently as last year, scientists on all sides of the debate were still looking for credible reasons for the long term pause in global warming. At last count, there were 60+ possible reasons suggested, explaining why global warming had stopped.
    But this year, the talking points changed. Now the new talking point is: ‘global warmig never stopped!’ And like eco-lemmings going over a cliff, some in the alarmist contingent here are repeating that bogus new talking point. They are still trying to convince skeptics — who know better — that ‘global warming never stopped’.
    They have now given up on science becauase the real world is busy debunking their beleif system. So now it’s politcs and propaganda all day, every day. They lost the science debate. Their talking point misinformation is all they have left.
    So the question is this: which side are you on? Are you a scientific skeptic (the only honest kind of scientist, or student of science)? Or, are you happy to promote the new alarmist propaganda talking points?
    The choice to be a skeptic or not is yours, and there is no middle ground.

  22. alvahillbilly says:
    When you have experimental data, generally there is some underlying pattern (well hopefully there is), but the pattern has got noise added on top of it.
    Correct. Noise swamps the AGW signal. The problem with the AGW conjecture is that AGW has never been quantified with measurements. That’s because the signal is so small; it is down in the noise.
    AGW may well exist. I think it does. But since it’s too small to measure with current instruments, we don’t know how much global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions.
    Is it 5%? We don’t know.
    Is it 0.07%? We don’t know.
    Is it 0.003% We don’t know!
    Whenever AGW is discussed, people give their opinions. That’s all they have, since AGW has never been empirically measured. But if we had a definitive measurement of AGW, the question of the climate sensitivity number to 2xCO2 would finally be answered.
    As it stands, the guesstimates of the sensitivity number are all over the map, from 3º – 6ºC (IPCC), to 3ºC (many alarmists), to <1ºC (Lindzen, et. al), to <0.5ºC (Idso), to 0.00ºC) (Dr. Ferenc Miscolczi). Some scientists even argue that CO2 has a cooling effect.
    So there is no agreement whatever. The reason is because AGW has never been quantified with a measurement. If we had a verifiable, testable, agreed-upon measurment quantifying AGW, then we would know the climate sensitivity number — and we could then accurately predict how much global warming X amount of human CO2 emissions would cause.
    But as we know, no predictions of AGW are accurate. They are only opinions. No one was even able to predict the most significant global temperature event of the past century: the fact that global warming stopped for almost twenty years, while CO2 continued to steadily rise.
    Conclusion: while AGW probably exists, it is simply too minuscule to measure. Thus, the rise of CO2 is a complete non-problem. QED

    • In an article (I don’t think there was a link to the actual study) on livescience(dot)com, they claimed to have measured the affect of humans on temperatures and watts/meter. The additional claimed w/m2 was .2 and the temperature increase due to this was 10% of manmade warming. My back of the envelope calculations (using IPPC’s numbers stating that humans are responsible for 50% of the observed warming) show the total amount of warming due to human release of CO2 to be .322c since 1970. Not per decade, not per year….total.

    • @db
      you said:
      “Correct. Noise swamps the AGW signal”
      which is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. What I said was:
      “When you have experimental data, generally there is some underlying pattern (well hopefully there is), but the pattern has got noise added on top of it.”
      If you don’t understand the difference between a signal with noise, and a signal that has been swamped by noise, that’s really rather your problem. I do understand the difference.

      • After a 30+ year carreer working in one of the largest Metrology labs in the country, I think I understand S/N ratios, and what happens when the noise is greater than the signal. Fom your comments, you don’t understand.
        This chart shows what is happening here:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
        Adding more CO2 has no measurable effect. It is just a tiny, 3rd-order forcing that is swamped by 2nd- and 1st-order forcings. At current concentrations, the warming effect CO2 is down in the noise. You’re looking for something that can’t be measured with current instruments.
        Now, either you buy into the narrative that more CO2 will cause rapid global warming, or you accept radiative physics, which shows that there’s nothing to be concerned about. The choice is yours. Take your pick.

      • @db
        “After a 30+ year carreer working in one of the largest Metrology labs in the country, I think I understand S/N ratios, and what happens when the noise is greater than the signal.”
        Great. Then you will understand that the following two statements are completely different:
        “Correct. Noise swamps the AGW signal”
        and
        “When you have experimental data, generally there is some underlying pattern (well hopefully there is), but the pattern has got noise added on top of it.”
        Yes? You agree that a signal + noise (where I haven’t even said anything about the properties of that noise), is different to signal swamped by noise? Agree?

        • alvahillbilly,
          The noise is not riding “on top” of the signal. That implies something completely different. The signal is buried under the noise. When the noise is much greater than any minuscule signal, the signal cannot be measured — at least using current instruments.
          You’re arguing with everyone here. But you have no measurements or other convincing evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause any measurable global warming.
          If you find something, great. But arguing without verifiable facts that corroborate your beliefs means you are arguing from emotion.
          I sympathize, because after being bombarded 24/7/365 with the media’s “carbon” scare, and everything related, it takes some mental discipline to reject any claims that cannot be supported by the Scientific Method, and Occam’s Razor, and the climate Null Hypothesis.
          They alwyays try to get the public head-nodding in agreement. There is no critical thinking taught in government .edu factories any more. If they can get you to buy in without any evidence, they’ve won.
          But you and the public have lost. Because they’re not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. There’s an Agenda in play, supported by the alarmist Narrative. But none of it withstands even mild scientific scrutiny.
          Either you question the media’s ‘authority’ and think for yourself, or they’ve got you.

      • @dbstealey
        And a graph, which is a fake again: It presents ~0,3 Celcius degree per doubling of CO2 concentration.

      • @db
        Your entire comment is just another repetition of the same points you keep making over and over. My comment was a very simple one, that you had misrepresented what I said. Instead of addressing that you just go on another rant about politics and the media etc etc. You’re wasting your breath. I have no interest in any of that. Try to resist using every post as another opportunity to repeat yourself.

      • alvahillbilly says:
        Your entire comment is just another repetition of the same points you keep making over and over.
        But facts wash off you like a rainstorm washes off a duck. Facts have no effect on you. No matter how many times I explain verifiable facts you refuse to accept them, simply because they don’t support your belief.
        You’re arguing from a position of emotion-based belief. You’re just certain that humans are causing runaway global warming, and all the facts in the world that contradict your belief can’t change your mind.
        Like many alarmists, you’ve made up your mind, so now all your energy is directed toward cherry-picking any factoids that support your confirmation bias. But that’s not science. That’s religion; your eco-religion.

      • dbstealey May 10, 2016 at 11:23 am
        desmond,
        Look at the graph. Where does it say ‘~0,3C’?

        Well I did explain but my posts were apparently deleted! Perhaps the mods can restore them?

    • @db
      you said
      “AGW may well exist. I think it does. But since it’s too small to measure with current instruments, we don’t know how much global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions.
      Is it 5%? We don’t know.
      Is it 0.07%? We don’t know.
      Is it 0.003% We don’t know!”
      which isn’t great, because it means that we cannot rule out the possibility that human CO2 emissions have a large effect. The uncertainty does not work in your favour. If there is uncertainty, how can be so certain that human CO2 is responsible for almost none of the current warming? The two statements contradict each other.

      • alvahillbilly, Dr Spencer has a blog that you also might be interested in. He’s a pretty reasonable guy and does his best to bend over backwards to make AGW work (and to help people understand things). He’s of the opinion that agw accounts for about 50% of recent warming. He also says we have no real way of knowing. It could be as low as 10% or as high as 90%. His famous (at least in my mind) quote is that we can flip a coin as to whether or not we see any warming. So, just because we see warming, it does not necessarily mean that agw is real…

      • In other words, you want skeptics to try and prove a negative.
        Sorry, but the onus is on you, since the CO2=cAGW conjecture is being promoted by your side of the debate. Skeptics have nothing to prove.
        You could produce a conjecture that says a Heffalump infestation will soon occur, and list all the bad things that go along with Heffalump infestations. Fine, go ahead. But it is not the duty of skeptics to “rule out that possibility”, as you put it.
        Demanding that skeptics must prove a negative is a typical alarmist tactic. It is often associated with Noble Cause Corruption: bad things might happen, so for the good of humanity we must spend $billions every year to make sure we avoid that calamity. Because we’re just such good people, see? We care…
        Just replace “Heffalumps” with “dangerous AGW”. Same-same.

      • @db
        see my comment above?
        “Your entire comment is just another repetition of the same points you keep making over and over”
        As above. All I did was say ‘thank you’ to afonzarelli, and you’re off again.

      • @db
        “In other words, you want skeptics to try and prove a negative.”
        you’ve claimed that before, and I asked you to copy-paste my words where I did that. I ask you again: where did I do that?

      • Yes, Dr Spencer is the author of this particular post (here at wuwt). He would be what they call in the biz a “luke warmist” as is Dr Curry. I like his blog a bit more than say Dr Curry’s. He’s not quite as “heady” and he’s very good at boiling things down so that they can be easily understood…

      • alvahillbilly says:
        …we cannot rule out the possibility that human CO2 emissions have a large effect.
        By that you’re implying that humans may have a large effect on global T. You compound that by saying:
        …how can be so certain that human CO2 is responsible for almost none of the current warming?
        The default position is the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. If you reject that, you are trying to make skeptics prove a negative — when the onus is on your side to falsify th Null Hypothesis.
        Kevin Trenberth tried the same tactic, when he wrote that the Scientific Method must be changed, by forcing skeptics to prove that man-made global warming doesn’t exist.
        That shows the desperation of the climate alarmist crowd.
        What you should have said was:
        We cannot rule out the possibility that human CO2 emissions have no effect.
        Then you would be on the right track.

      • dbstealey said: “The default position is the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. If you reject that, you are trying to make skeptics prove a negative — when the onus is on your side to falsify th Null Hypothesis.”
        No, untrue. The world’s scientific bodies and the vast majority of climate researchers have agreed that AGW is real. So it is skeptics that have to prove their case, not the other way around.

        • Chris,
          Oh, please, stop it with your incessant ‘appeal to corrupted authorities’ logical fallacy.
          I understand that’s all you’ve got, so you feel you have to use it. But it’s a fallacy.
          See? A fallacious argument loses the debate.
          And Dr. Roy Spencer, the referenced author of this article and an internationally recognized Climatologist, has written that ‘the Null Hpothesis has never been falsified’ (paraphrased). And your qualifications are what, exactly?
          As an anonymous commenter with no CV, I think I’ll do just what you love to do, and play the ‘appeal to authority’ card. Dr. Spencer has forgotten more than you will ever learn about the subject. So who are you to say he’s wrong?

        • Chris says:
          So it is skeptics that have to prove their case, not the other way around.
          Chris, you are either deluded or mendacious. Either way, you don’t belong here. You don’t get to turn the Scientific Method on its head, just because you can’t win the argument any other way.
          What is it about skeptics have nothing to prove that you can’t understand?

      • @db
        high uncertainty in the forcing effect of CO2 means the following:
        We cannot rule out a large effect of CO2 – it may explain all the observed warming.
        We cannot rule out an insignificant effect of CO” – it may explain almost none of the warming.
        However, you are saying (I think, and you’ll probably bite my head off for saying this, but hey, what’s new):
        There is high uncertainty in the forcing effect of CO2
        We are certain that it only has insignificant effect on warming.
        It’s contraction. Uncertainty means being open to the possibility that it may have a large effect. Or a tiny one.

        • alavhillbilly,
          Maybe this will put it in perspective. You say:
          We cannot rule out a large effect of CO2 – it may explain all the observed warming.
          Look at it this way:
          We cannot rule out a large effect of Heffalumps – they may explain all the observed warming.
          That’s how a scientific skeptic would look at it. Without at least some convincing evidence to support the hypothesis, it’s no more than a conjecture; an opinion.
          By convincing evidence, I mean either verifiable measurements quantifying AGW, or observations that would falsify the climate Null Hypothesis.
          Do you know what the ‘Null Hypothesis’ means? That should be your starting point in determining if human CO2 emissions have the claimed effect.

      • Chris says:
        “No, untrue. The world’s scientific bodies and the vast majority of climate researchers have agreed that AGW is real. So it is skeptics that have to prove their case, not the other way around.”
        So skeptics have to prove their case, but agw proponents do not?

      • @db
        and yet again, you ignore the point I just made. Let’s make it crystal clear. The following two statements:
        There is high uncertainty in the forcing effect of CO2
        We are certain that it only has insignificant effect on warming.
        are a contradiction. And yes, I know what a null hypothesis is, thank you.
        Could you stop talking about Heffalumps for a moment and tell me whether you agree that this is a contradiction. Just a yes or no would do.

      • alvahillbilly says:
        There is high uncertainty in the forcing effect of CO2
        We are certain that it only has insignificant effect on warming.
        are a contradiction.

        Wrong again. There can be a high uncertainty in the forcing effect of CO2, and CO2 can still cause only an insignificant effect on global T. Where’s the contradiction? It’s simply not in that example.
        Next, I note once again that the alarmist crowd always wants questions answered — but they try their best to avoid answering questions.
        The real world has shown conclusively that the rise in CO2 has at best a minimal effect; an effect that is too small to even measure.
        So what do we do? Accept what Planet Earth is clearly telling us?
        Or play word games?
        The fact is that the alarmist crowd was 100.0% wrong. When no predictions made by those proposing an hypothesis have ever come true, the only honest course of action is to admit that your hypothesis was wrong.
        You refuse to do that. Instead, you’re desperately trying to keep that dead horse moving, by flogging it with incessant but irrelevant comments.
        The alarmist crowd lost the science debate a long time ago. Now it’s all politics, propaganda, and word games.

      • dbstealey & afonzarelli;
        db, you need to work on your comprehension skills – you know, the skills you should’ve learned 50 years ago. Talking about scientific bodies and climatologists is not an appeal to authority. There is a process by which research on climate has taken place, and a process under which the results of the research are then combined and conclusions drawn. That process has taken place, and the conclusions drawn with 95% certainty that AGW is real, and is causing substantial warming. It’s fine if you disagree with the conclusions of individual researchers, or the way the conclusions have been drawn. You can call the process flawed and corrupted. But that doesn’t change the outcome of the process or the conclusions.
        You keep saying the AGW believers need to prove their cases to skeptics such as yourself. Or what? We won’t get a gold star here on WUWT? As I have said to you multiple times, the world’s scientific bodies agree on AGW, as do the vast majority of practicing climatologists, as do governments, the Fortune 1000 and the oil companies. Commitments and action on AGW is taking place. If skeptics want that to change, it’s YOU that need to do the convincing.

        • Chris says:
          AGW is real…
          Which is what I’ve said consistently for many years. I’ve never said anything differently. And you say my reading comprehension is weak?? Your reading comprehension is clearly non-existent.
          Then you say:
          AGW … is causing substantial warming.
          As I’ve also pointed out for many years, that is a baseless assertion. It is clearly, obviously, provably wrong. You have never produced any credible evidence showing that the rise in CO2 has caused ‘substantial warming’. You cannot show that, for the simple reason that there has been no ‘substantial warming’. Your belief that “substantial warming” is occurring is flatly contradicted by reality: the past century’s temperatures have been flatter than anything found in the entire temperature record.
          Over the past century and a half, global temperatures have fluctuated by a minuscule 0.7ºC. Nearly half the decades during the past century have been cooling, thus falsifying your absurd belief.
          And as usual you fall back on your incessant logical fallacy; your endless ‘appeal to corrupted authorities’, as if that wins you any debate points. It doesn’t. It just shows that you’ve got nothing in the way of verifiable, measurable evidence.
          Believers in catastrophic AGW need to prove their case to skeptics. They have abjectly failed, as your post demonstrates. You’ve lost the science debate because your argument is based entirely on baseless assertions, not on measureable data. You cannot produce any measurable evidence quantifying AGW out of all global warming. The planet warms and cools, while CO2 continues its steady rise — thus falsifying your belief.
          You are no different from a Jehovah’s Witness who has been told his beliefs are nonsense. There is nothing that can change your mind, certainly not the complete lack of any supporting measurements. Catastrophic AGW is your eco-religion, and from your comments there is no hope of your ever coming down to earth, and realizing that your belief is tantamount to believing there’s a black cat lurking under your bed. But when you turn on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.

      • Chris, it seems that you are conflating the science of agw with the politics of agw. I agree with you whole heartedly on the political point that you’ve made here. Unless agw is DISPROVEN, the climate change juggernaut will continue on into the future. The only way i think that is likely to happen is if we see sustained cooling or a continued lack of warming. Obviously, if temps don’t start rising soon, there will be defections in the ranks of both scientists and politicians. (i’ll leave a link to the hans von storch interview which will give you some insight as to where things are going on this point within the ipcc) My biggest interest is in watching how carbon growth continues to react in the face of no warming or future cooling. The atmoshperic carbon dioxide growth rate has been tracking with temperature since the inception of the mauna loa observatory over half a century ago. Should we see carbon growth continue at just 2ppm per year (or less with the onset of cooling) for an extended period of time, that would be enough to pop the climate change bubble politically without actually falsifying agw theory…
        http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-906721.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=

      • @db
        Let’s call the forcing effect F. We use use F to mean ‘how much of the observed global warming is caused by human CO2 emission’.
        statement 1: the value of F is highly uncertain. It could be anywhere between 0% and 100%
        statement 2: we are certain that the value of F is very low.
        These statements are contradictory. If you disagree, please explain. It’s like saying
        P(x) is uniform in [0,1]
        x is guaranteed to be <<1.
        A bare contradiction.

  23. Alvahillbilly:
    Earlier you stated “it was ridiculous to expect a theory to match the wiggles”
    Actually, there IS a model, based solely upon the amount of reduction in anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions, which will match all of the NASA land/ocean temp. index “wiggles” circa 1975 to the present (the era of global warming) with an accuracy of a tenth of a degree C or (usually) less, for any year for which the amount of sulfur dioxide emissions is known, when occasional temporary excursions due to El Nino’s, La Nina’s, and large volcanic eruptions are accounted for.
    The match is so close that there can never have been any additional warming due to greenhouse gasses!
    The science is far from settled!.
    Google: ” It’s SO2, not CO2″ for more information

    • So this is your model?
      Ok, so I understand how aerosols can affect temperature – increase aerosols, and you’ll get a cooling effect. Remove them, and you remove that cooling effect.
      But how does SO2 produce the clear warming that we’ve seen since 1880 ish? It seems to me that all they’ve done is to counterbalance an underlying warming, and when they were reduced, the underlying warming carried on. But what’s causing the underlying warming?
      the Clean Air Act should put us in a similar situation now, to that to around 1880, in terms of aerosols. Or perhaps a bit cooler. But it’s significantly warmer!
      Surely your model would predict that we should have had cooling from 1880 ish as SO2 emissions increased, and then warming when they were removed. But the temperature at the end should be similar to that at the start. Or have I misunderstood?

      • Alvahillbilly:
        As I stated, the model applies specifically to the period circa 1975 – present and is essentially a perfect match to NASA’s Jan-Dec average global temperature values. The fact that it can explain what has happened to the climate over the past 40 years is of paramount importance–it is not necessary for it to explain anything that happened in the past–although it will help to explain parts of it, such as the warming that occurred during the depression years, which was also due to the reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions.(about 29 Megatonnes) due to reduced industrial activity
        The climate sensitivity factor to the removal of dimming anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions is approx. .02 deg. C. of temp. change for each net Megatonne of decrease (or increase) in global SO2 aerosol emissions..
        You wondered how SO2 caused the clear warming we’ve seen since 1880 . SO2 will cause warming ONLY when it is removed from the atmosphere. Anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions peaked around 1972 (at about 131 Megatonnes), and caused so much cooling that there were fears of a returning ice age at that time..
        You do pose a good question as to what has caused the underlying warming. It is certainly not CO2. Probably solar in origin–perhaps our solar system passed through a diffuse interstellar cloud??.
        Going forward, we can expect temperatures to continually increase at the rate given by the Climate Sensitivity factor, unless an El Nno fades away, or a large volcanic eruption occurs..
        (Incidentally, global SO2 emissions from the start of the industrial age to 2015 are slated to be available this quarter).

      • “It is certainly not CO2”.
        Given the amount of debate around the possible role of CO2 in warming, it’s strange to have you flatly claim that. On what basis do you say that?
        The data I’ve seen on sun activity does not look like it can explain warming at all. If anything, it’s going in the wrong direction. So then you’re left with some completely unnoticed cause. How can you rule out CO2? It’s been increasing, and it’s a known greenhouse gas.
        If you combine your model (which is interesting BTW) with one based on CO2, you might get pretty close to the actual data, and over the larger time period of 1880-now. Although of course that still leaves the lack of warming during the past 15 years or so, but I’ve not seen anyone have an explanation for that yet.

        • Alvahillbilly::
          You state “How can you rule out CO2? It’s been increasing, and it’s a known greenhouse gas?”
          You have not really paid close attention to what I have stated regarding: my model..
          Based solely upon the amount of reduction in anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions, and the .02 deg. C climate sensitivity factor for their removal, it is possible to project the anomalous temperature rise for any year between 1975 and the present (for which SO2 emissions are known) with an accuracy of a tenth of a degree C, or , usually, less. This is with respect to NASA’s land-ocean temperature index values of average global temperatures, Jan-Dec.
          With this precise agreement, there is simply NO room for any warming from alleged “greenhouse gasses’–which are all theoretical, never having been empirically proven.
          Here is an example of the agreement:
          Global anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions in 1975 totaled approx. 131..4 Megatonnes. By 2011, due to global Clean Air efforts, they had dropped to 101 Megatonnes, a decrease of 30.4 Megatonnes.. 30.4 x .02 =0.608 deg. C. of expected anomalous global warming. For 2011, NASA reported an anomalous temperature rise of 0.60 deg.C. This projection was accurate to within .008 deg. C., over a 36 year period!
          With respect to the lack of warming over the past 15 years, this is simply not correct.
          Warming has continued, but at a much slower rate than between 1975 and 2000., due to the rise in Eastern SO2 emissions offsetting continued reductions in Western SO2 emissions. With lesser net amounts of SO2 being removed globally, temperature increases slowed down.
          Which is why 2014-2016 has been warmer–the off-setting is no longer as exact–the temp. rise is largely NOT due to the El Nino..

      • What caused the rise in global temperature over the past century? It was not primarily CO2. In fact, CO2 was not even a secondary forcing.
        As anyone can see, there has been no acceleration in global warming. The trend line from the LIA shows that clearly; no acceleration. At all. In fact, global warming “paused” for 18+ years.
        And the long term natural rise in global temperatures shows no “fingerprint of AGW”. Temperature fluctuations have remained within well defined parameters:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/alternativeinterpretationofgmtfig2.png
        That flatly contradicts the predictions of the alarmist crowd, who said the rise in CO2 would cause accelerated warming, and disappearing polar ice caps, and decimated polar bear populations, and accelerating sea level rise, and hundreds of other calamities.
        None of them ever happened! The alarmist crowd could hardly look more foolish, could they? They were wrong, no two ways about it.
        But they would just look like scientists who made a mistake — no big deal, happens all the time — if they had just admitted what most folks here know: their hypothesis was wrong.
        But instead, they dig in their heels, and keep insisting that CO2 is causing runaway global warming. But readers here know the truth:
        https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png
        What’s amusing are the eco-lemmings posting here who haven’t got a shred of credible evidence to support their belief, but they insist they’re right anyway. Religion will do that. Try to tell a Jehovah’s Witness they’re on the wrong track. Same-same.

      • @Burl Henry
        Hmm, well I did kinda skim read it. Let me think about it properly…

      • No matter how you look at it, if you add the up bits and the down bits, you land up with a net up trend. It’s blindingly obvious from the fact that the graph is higher at one end than the other. If you really can’t see that the graph is going up, I suggest we just drop the subject as I’ve no other way of explaining it.

      • alvahillbilly:
        The trend? The trend doesn’t show the cause of global warming. You’re making a big and unwarranted assumption, with no supporting evidence. You seem to believe that just because the planet is in one of its periodic warming episodes, that human CO2 must be the cause. But you have nothing more than your belief as suppport.
        In fact, the trend totally supports the position of skeptics, and debunks the alarmist claims.
        Even arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones shows that the current warming trend is exactly the same as previous, natural step rises in global warming — which occurred before human CO2 emissions were a factor:
        http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
        That is pretty conclusive evidence that CO2 simply doesn’t have the claimed warming effect. Go argue with Jones if you don’t like it. Without measurements quantifying AGW you’re wasting your time here, arguing incessantly over what amounts to nothing more than your belief system.

  24. alvahillbilly,
    No one is arguing that there has been no global warming. That’s the biggest strawman in the alarmist arsenal.
    Here is a graph showing natural global warming since the 1880’s. Notice that there has been no acceleration — a central tenet and prediction of the alarmist crowd.
    The warming trend is the same whether human CO2 emissions were large, or almost non-existent. That pretty much debunks the claim that human emissions cause any measurable global warming.

    • No, the slope is clearly higher in more recent years than from the period of the 1880s to the 1950s.

      • Wrong, the rate of warming has gone from .055C/decade in the 1880-1950 period to .114C/decade in the 1950-2016. My eyesight is perfectly fine, I can’t say the same for yours.

      • “As usual, I posted verifiable links.” No, not as usual. Look at all the charts you posted in your thread with Alvahillbilly. They were not verifiable, and you went after him for not trusting the data.

      • Chris,
        Post the charts you’re referring to. So far, you’ve only complained that one (B.E.S.T.) had no source. So I posted a WoodForTrees chart of the B.E.S.T. database, showing the same thing. Therefore, your complaint is just baseless nitpicking.
        Post “all the charts” you’re asserting are “not verifiable”, by which I assume you mean you simply disagree with what they’re telling you.

  25. Chris is wrong, but he can’t admit it. Here is plenty of evidence that recent global temperatures have been declining.
    Here is the B.E.S.T. dataset showing the decline in global T.
    and here is the satellite record showing declining temperatures:
    https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_8850-may-01-04-45.gif
    I have plenty more data-based charts showing that global T is not accelerating as Chris falsely assumes. Just ask, and I’ll post them.

      • Another good quote:
        “Depending on your preconceptions, by picking your start and end times carefully, you can now ‘prove’ that:
        Temperature is falling!
        Temperature is static!
        Temperature is rising!
        Temperature is rising really fast!”
        “Personally, I prefer the long view…If you look at the trend data, you can see the current trends in °C, between 0.14-0.16°C/decade, or, if it continues at the same rate, between 1.4 and 1.6°C per century.”

      • Alva and Miso, I’m sure it was COMPLETELY accidental that dbstealey plotted a chart that ends in 2015, when we are almost midway through 2016. He will likely respond “it’s not my chart, take it up with Steven Goddard.” But since he knows how to use WFT to plot data, that statement will ring hollow.

      • Chris, does stealey really have to wait until nina replaces nino to prove his point? It isn’t as though Dr Spencer’s data is not at the top of the page where we can see the last couple months have taken off. It’s seems that you’re “borderline trolling” as opposed to adding constructive debate here. Stealey is merely repeating what the whole climate change world has known about for quite some time. I posted a link to the Hans von Storch interview in a comments above for you. Take some time and read it. He’s a bonafide ipcc contributor who has some pretty damning things to say about the current affairs in climate change. Things that the ipcc are going to have no choice but to address if temps resume the trajectory that stealey has laid out once nina has come and gone…

      • Afonzarelli, look at what Alva and Miso wrote, especially the WFT point that longer intervals are better. Why is it trolling to call dbstealey out on that? There are lots of other examples of that – looking at rates of growth of trees, annual snowpack, glacier size, Arctic ice extent. A longer interval is better as it shows long term trends, and prevents short term phenomena such as volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina from skewing the results. I could look at RSS data and find a period of time when the rate of temperature increase was very high, likely above 2C/century. But that would be cherry picking, it’s better to look at long term intervals.

      • Chris,
        alvahillbilly is new to this subject, so I wouldn’t refer to him as any kind of authority. And Miso was a sockpuppet, as the moderator pointed out.
        So all you have is your own misinformed opinion, as usual.
        Carry on.

  26. Chris says:
    I’m sure it was COMPLETELY accidental that dbstealey plotted a chart that ends in 2015
    Chris is incapable of finding the source of the chart, as he’s shown before. He just can’t seem to do it. Furthermore, Chris complains about any chart I post. This particular one uses whole years, and 2015 was the last whole year. When 2016 is concluded I’ll post an updated chart. In the mean time, Chris can continue his incessant complaining.
    Next, I have no obligation to dance to the tune of an anonymous complainer, who couldn’t find something educational in a chart I posted if his life depended on it. All Chris does is complain. I don’t blame him, because the real world is busy debunking everything he believes in. Complaining about the real world is going beyond “borderline trolling”.
    I constantly call out Chris, and hillbilly, and any other alarmist that refuses to admit they have no measurable evidence quantifying their belief that AGW is causing any measurable global warming. But they always deflect, by changing the subject, or answering questions with other questions, and never answering questions, and their endless strawman arguments, and their constant appeals to corrupted authorities — those are what the alarmist crowd uses for their arguments. That’s all they’ve got.
    They don’t have any credible measuements, or verifiable evidence, or observations that will convince rational readers that CO2 is the control knob of global temperatures; which is their central argument.
    Finally, alvahillbilly keeps asking for a long term view. So here is a chart just like the one he/she posted, but going back another hundred years. That long term chart trumps hillbilly’s, no?
    Notice that from ≈1900 to ≈1940’s, the rising global temperature trend was the same as the current rising trend. But human CO2 emissions began to ramp up beginning in the late ’40’s – early ’50’s.
    Since the rise in global T was the same, whether CO2 was low or high, the conjecture that human CO2 emissions are the cause of measureable global warming is falsified. QED

    • @db
      “Since the rise in global T was the same, whether CO2 was low or high, the conjecture that human CO2 emissions are the cause of measureable global warming is falsified”
      No.
      What would be falsified would be a claim such as:
      “CO2 emissions are the only thing acting on the climate”. But no climate scientist would make such ridiculous claim. Clearly we still have El Nino, El Nina, volcanoes, variations in sun output etc. These add additional variance on top of the overall warming trend. And then there’s plain old noise.
      But none of them can explain that warming trend, only rising CO2 can do that. That’s because CO2 is the only thing that’s been consistently rising over that time period.

      • hillbilly,
        If it weren’t for strawman arguments, you wouldn’t have much to say. No one from the skeptic side has ever said that. But I’ve read alarmist comments that claim CO2 explains 100% of global warming.
        And:
        …none of them can explain that warming trend, only rising CO2 can do that.
        If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest commenter here. Certainly logic isn’t your strong point.
        You’re saying that since your limited intelligence cannot comprehend any other thing that could cause global warming except rising CO2, then you believe that must be the only possible answer. You assume that the universe simply cannot have a different reason.
        You’re amusing. Like a dog trying to understand trigonometry.

      • Alva, i like making the analogy to the game of chess at these blogs… First one learns how the pieces move and then one developes strategy. One of those “pieces” is the realization that most all of the warming over the last century and a half is natural. This, even by ipcc standards. (the ipcc only lays claim to as little as half of the recent warming being caused by anthro emissions y no mas) Warming prior to the last half of a century is impacted too little by emissions to make a difference. Few dispute this. There is a pro agw scientist who weighs in every now and again at spencer’s blog with a tepid claim to pryor warming without being too definitive about it. (but other than “dr jan” not a one disputes this) What stealey is saying here implies this. He knows how this particular “chess piece” moves and assumes others know as well. Now, where he goes from there would be the legitimate point of contention (in other words, the “chess strategy”)…

      • @db
        “You’re amusing. Like a dog trying to understand trigonometry.”
        Do you find that your insulting attitude is successful? I mean, has anyone ever been persuaded by your arguments?
        Consider the function y = sin x + 0.3*x
        ie a sin wave added to a linear trend. If I plot this, I will see that the peaks always look the same, regardless of how far along the curve I am. But the peaks towards the right hand side will be higher up than those on the left, due to the linear trend. The fact that the peaks all look the same does not mean there is no linear trend.
        When you say
        “Notice that from ≈1900 to ≈1940’s, the rising global temperature trend was the same as the current rising trend. But human CO2 emissions began to ramp up beginning in the late ’40’s – early ’50’s.”
        what you neglect to mention is that the current rising trend is shifted up w.r. t. that from 1900ish to 1940ish.
        “You’re saying that since your limitwed intelligence cannot comprehend anything that could cause global warming except rising CO2, then that must be the only possible answer. The universe simply cannot contain a different reason.”
        Please enlighten me of what else could be causing that overall warming trend.

      • a. hillbilly says:
        …what you neglect to mention is that the current rising trend is shifted up w.r. t. that from 1900ish to 1940ish.
        Neglect to mention?? I’ve repeatedly posted über-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones’ data, which shows the exact same global warming step changes going back to the mid-1800’s:
        http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
        Anyone with the least bit of common sense can see that whether CO2 is low, or high, global warming is unaffected by its concentration. The rise in CO2 has caused no measurable change in global warming. There has been no acceleration in global T — which was predicted, and which would be expected if CO2 had the claimed effect. But it never happened.
        In fact, the current temperature rise is small compared with prior fluctuations during the Holocene. You can count at least twenty rises greater than the current rise here:
        https://snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
        What does that mean? It means that your conjecture that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming has been falsified by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth.
        When a conjecture (or hypothesis, or theory) has been falsified, then according to the Scientific Method those who proposed the conjecture are obligated to reject it. They are then expected to formulate a new conjecture or hypothesis, which includes the new information, and evidence, and observations that falsified their original hypothesis. That new hypothesis should more accurately explain what’s happening. The old one has failed. With new information, a new hypothesis should hopefully reflect reality better.
        But the climate alarmists refuse to follow the Scientific Method. Instead, they dig in their heels and insist that they are still right: that the rise in CO2 will cause accelerating global warming. Against all contrary evidence, they still insist that CO2 is the basic ‘control knob’ of global temperature. The real world shows that is nonsense, but alarmists are too invested in their narrative. They refuse to give it up, even though it’s been falsified.
        Why would people reject what the real world is telling us? Obviously, the CO2=cAGW conjecture was flat wrong. It has been as thoroughly debunked as the theory of epicycles. So why are climate alarmists so intent on believing something that is clearly wrong?
        Some reasons are: politics, and/or eco-religion, and/or money, fame, and fortune. Some scientists have found that easy grant money is available if they parrot the “dangerous man-made global warming” propaganda. And some folks will believe anything in the name of their eco-beliefs. They are eco-lemmings, who refuse to admit that the hated skeptics were right all along.
        There are as many reasons as there are alarmists. But they all have one thing in common: the truth is not in them.

      • dbstealey May 13, 2016 at 5:34 pm
        In fact, the current temperature rise is small compared with prior fluctuations during the Holocene. You can count at least twenty rises greater than the current rise here:

        Since that graph doesn’t show the last 160 years I’m not sure how you can see that.

      • Alvahkillbilly:
        Among your comments to @db, you stated “But none of them can explain that warming trend, only rising CO2 can do that”
        You are indeed a slow learner. As I pointed out earlier, decreasing amounts of anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions will ALSO cause warming, and in fact is the actual cause of all of the anomalous warming that has occurred..
        The B.E.S.T dataset graph posted by DBSstealey shows a large peak in the warming for 2010. This cannot be explained by gently rising CO2 levels, or the moderate 2009-10 El Nino, but is easily explained by the 9.28 Megatonnes of reduction in SO2 emissions that occurred between 2005 and 2010.
        Also, the larger peak that occurred in 1998 was caused by an even larger reduction in SO2 levels, 11 Megatonnes, along with some small contribution from the 1997-1998 El Nino.

      • @Burl Henry:
        I thought we’d already agreed that aerosols cannot account for the *net* warming that has happened between 1880 and now? You start off with a climate with low manmade aerosol levels. You add aerosols over a time period – you should get cooling effect. You start reducing aerosols – you should get a warming effect. So at the end of that, you should be back to roughly the same temperature that you started with. We are not. We are at a significantly higher temperature. You cannot get net warming by adding aerosols and then removing them.
        Yes, I can see that aerosols may explain the high-frequency details. But they cannot explain the larger-scale warming between 1880 ish and now. You admitted this yourself earlier on, when you were saying that maybe it’s the sun, or us going through an interstellar cloud. So we agree? That the aerosol model does not explain the larger-scale warming between 1880 and now? Because it is that large-scale warming that I’m referring to.
        One other interesting thing I discovered:
        If the warming trend was caused by the sun, you would expect all layers of the atmosphere to have warmed. However, if it was caused by a greenhouse effect, you would expect the upper layers to actually get cooler. Guess which has happened?

        • Alvahillbilly:
          As I have pointed out before, my model is SPECIFIC to the period circa 1975 -present, the “Era of Global warming”. It is completely divorced from anything that has happened before, although the same.mechanism (the reduction in anthkropogenic SO2 emissions) has operated at discrete intervals in the past, such as in the warming of the 1930’s.
          We live in a unique period in the history of the planet in that action is being taken to deliberately reduce air pollution. Unfortunately, these actions, with respect to reductions in SO2 aerosols, have the serious side effect of warming the planet.
          What is also unfortunate is that this is not recognized, but instead is being blamed upon CO2, a harmless gas with no adverse climatic effect. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted in the useless effort to control CO2 emissions, along with untold misery from higher energy costs, worsening weather conditions. etc.
          And the EPA (and similar agencies abroad), which in the final analysis have CAUSED the global warming, want to reduce SO2 emissions even further!

      • @Burl Henry:
        here’s an analogy:
        It’s winter, and I have the heating on in my flat. It’s 20 degrees inside. I want it to be cooler. So I turn the heating off. After a while, it has cooled. Has my heating made it cooler? How could a heating system ever make it cooler?
        Your aerosol system is a cooling system – it can only ever make it colder. When you turn it off (or reduce it), the temperature goes up. That doesn’t stop it being a cooling system. How could a cooling system ever make it warmer?

        • alvahillbilly:
          Your analogy is incorrect.
          Let’s look at the real world.
          When strongly dimming SO2 aerosols are present in the atmosphere, they will reflect incoming solar radiation, cooling the earth.because of the reduced insolation.
          This is correctly shown in the IPCC diagram of radiative forcings as a negative forcing. .
          When the dimming aerosols are removed from the atmosphere, they will allow sunshine tp strike the earth’s surface with greater intensity, thus causing greater insolation
          (This was the observed result after the 1991 Mount Pinatubo..eruption, where the 23 Megatonnes of SO2 emissions first cooled the earth by about 0.55 deg. C., followed by 0.55 deg. C. of warming as the SO2 aerosols settled out of the atmosphere after about 2 years).
          Here, the IPCC diagram is seriously incorrect, since it has no component for the large posiitive forcing caused by the reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions.
          To be correct, the forcing now attributed to CO2 should instead be attributed to SO2!

      • @db
        “You can count at least twenty rises greater than the current rise here:…. what does it mean?”
        Possibly it means that Greenland temperatures (from your plot) are not a perfect proxy for global temperatures. If we average all the proxies we have, we get something like this:
        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
        which shows that we are above historic norms.
        from my earlier post:
        Please enlighten me of what else could be causing that overall warming trend.

      • Phil. May 13, 2016 at 7:35 pm
        dbstealey May 13, 2016 at 5:34 pm
        In fact, the current temperature rise is small compared with prior fluctuations during the Holocene. You can count at least twenty rises greater than the current rise here:
        Since that graph doesn’t show the last 160 years I’m not sure how you can see that.
        dbstealey May 13, 2016 at 7:51 pm
        So, ‘Phil’? so what?
        I suppose this is your kind of chart:

        “So what?” Well when you claim that a graph shows that “the current temperature rise is small compared with prior fluctuations”, you can’t use one that omits the current period! Pretending that the little rise at the end from over 160 years ago is current, especially when you’ve been told about it on previous occasions is bogus.

        • Phil:
          …you can’t use one that omits the current period!
          Sure I can. I just did. I can link to any charts I like.
          Here’s a chart that fills in the gap you’re whining about. It goes to 2016.
          I note that out of the many hundreds of charts I’ve posted, and from numerous differnt, credible sources, you’ve never said you agreed with any of them.
          If you don’t like them, post your own. I’m sure I’ll have some charts to counter any you can find.
          And Chris says:
          You posted a chart from Steven Goddard…
          Ah. So you can find the source, if you want to.
          Is there anything keeping from you from asking Goddard your question? Or do you like assigning homework to others? I hope not, because you’re certain to be disappointed.

      • Burl Henry:
        Could you link me to the IPCC diagram you’re talking about? Just so that we’re on the same page.
        Do you agree with the following statement:
        Increasing aerosols and then decreasing them will result in a net temperature change of near-zero, I.e. no net warming effect. The net temp change from 1880 until now (ie +1.something degrees) is not due to aerosols, but rather due to some underlying warming mechanism.
        I just want to be clear about what you are saying.

        • Check the Wikipedia article on “Radiative Forcings”. The IPCC diagram is included in the article.
          No, I cannot entirely agree with your statement. If the amounts of SO2 increases and decreases are identical, then there would be no net change in average global temperatures . Any excess of one or the other would result in a temperature change, fall this in the absence of any natural variations due to El Nino’s, etc.). ..
          With respect to the 1880’s, between 1850 and roughly 1915, there were no reductions in SO2 emissions that might have caused any warming.

      • @Burl Henry:
        and to clarify my view, I am saying that aerosols are only ever a negative forcing effect, and never positive, as they can only ever cause cooling, and not warming. When we see aerosol-related warming, it’s because something is causing the warming, and we’ve removed the cooling effect of the aerosols. If you’re claiming that aerosols can have a genuine warming effect, please say so.

      • alvahilllbilly: “But none of them can explain that warming trend, only rising CO2 can do that. That’s because CO2 is the only thing that’s been consistently rising over that time period.”
        Utter unsubstantiated drivel.
        Write out 1000 times “correlation does not imply causation”.
        Then try to learn some science.

      • @Catweazle:
        Write out 1000 times: an uncorrelated signal cannot be a cause.
        What signal do you consider to be a more plausible cause for the net warming over the past 120 years? Presumably it must at least be correlated with temperature? More correlated than CO2?

      • dbstealey May 13, 2016 at 7:51 pm
        ‘Phil’, so what?
        The past 160 years are here. That supports my previous comment.

        That is not the last 160 years of the Greenland Summit Temperature date.

      • dbstealey May 14, 2016 at 2:00 pm
        Phil:
        “…you can’t use one that omits the current period!”
        Sure I can. I just did. I can link to any charts I like.

        But claiming that that graph shows “at least twenty rises greater than the current rise here” is clearly nonsense when the ‘current rise’ isn’t included on the graph! Perhaps you should have included a source of such data for central Greenland, e.g.
        Box, J. E., Yang, L., Bromwich, D. H., & Bai, L. S. (2009). Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840-2007*. Journal of Climate, 22(14), 4029-4049.
        I note that out of the many hundreds of charts I’ve posted, and from numerous differnt, credible sources, you’ve never said you agreed with any of them.
        When you post graphs with errors on them I comment on those errors. The variants of the Greenland Ice graph that you have posted show numerous dating errors and annotating errors which have been the subject of their own post here. Ally, whose data was used, has confirmed the error.
        Concerning the plot of ‘The Heating Effect of CO2’ which you frequently post here, the comments that point out the fact that you appear to be plotting a doubling rate of 0.3ºC and responding to your questions above, have been deleted (censored) for no reason.
        So when you link to bogus charts and have those errors pointed out apparently you get the comments erased!

      • alvahillbilly believes that CO2 is the control knob of global temperatures. Really, he actually believes that! Never mind that Planet Earth is clearly debunking that nonsense. The hillbilly still insists it’s true:
        Please enlighten me of what else could be causing that overall warming trend.
        As catweazel says: Utterly unsubstantiated drivel. If it was possible to enlighten the hillbilly, by now he would understand. But he’s fixated on the scientifically falsified belief that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.
        For new readers: if CO2 caused any measurable global warming, then the large rise in CO2 over the past century would have caused runaway global warming. But it didn’t.
        As we see, there has been no acceleration in the natural temperature rise since the LIA. That absence of any ‘fingerprint of AGW’ falsifies the conjecture that CO2 causes any measurable global warming.
        That is a rational conclusion. But alvahillbilly doesn’t believe it.
        That’s the hillbilly’s problem, but it isn’t a problem for skeptics. Skeptics know that the rise in CO2 has been completely harmless, and very beneficial to the biosphere.

      • @db
        so the question was:
        “Please enlighten me of what else could be causing that overall warming trend”
        I notice you didn’t attempt an answer. Will any of you ever attempt an answer?

      • dbstealey May 16, 2016 at 8:43 am
        @”Phil.”:
        Tell it to someone who cares. You’re just an anonymous collection of pixels. If you don’t like the charts I link to, post your own.

        I frequently do, here’s one which shows what happened on the Greenland summit during the ~160 years since the end of the GISP2 data which you posted.
        https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/g2n0g6PgHbDYwzS.b6hDFQ–/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NjY4O3E9OTU7dz0xMDAw/https://i1.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GRIPtempBoxlarge.png

    • “This particular one uses whole years, and 2015 was the last whole year.”
      We are commenting on a post about monthly data, including obviously individual months in 2016. So it is preposterous to post a chart that ends at yearly boundaries. But logic and dbstealey are rarely found in the same place, so I’m not surprised in the slightest.

      • And yet, Chris only posts his assertions. No verifiable facts. No charts of his own. Just like Phil.
        Chris and Phil have one thing in common: no matter how many charts I link to from numerous different sources, they will find something they don’t like about them. That’s just their anal-retentive nitpicking.
        If you don’t like the charts I link to, post your own.

      • Chris says:
        Your chart above leaves off nearly a year of data
        Wrong. As always. I explained so even commenters of below average intelligence could understand. But you still don’t get it. This year has only 4 months of data available. So you’re wrong about “nearly a year”.
        I post the charts I want to post, and as I stated I’m posting charts that go up to the last whole year. You can post whatever you want. Instead, you whine and complain. That’s all you do. The reason is simple: you lost the science debate.
        But you won’t man up and admit that the real world has debunked your belief system. That would require at least minimal character, which you lack. Instead, you complain because Planet Earth isn’t doing as predicted.
        So who should we believe? Always-wrong Chris?
        Or Planet Earth?
        One of them is right, and the other one is wrong. Which is which? Take a guess.

  27. dbstealey said: “Chris is incapable of finding the source of the chart, as he’s shown before. He just can’t seem to do it. Furthermore, Chris complains about any chart I post. This particular one uses whole years, and 2015 was the last whole year. When 2016 is concluded I’ll post an updated chart.”
    You posted a chart from Steven Goddard without any reference to when that was posted. You could’ve indicated that, but did not. So I went and found it myself. It was posted on 9 June 2015 – so obviously could not have data through year end 2015. Therefore, it is not a chart that ends on yearly boundaries. Tsk, tsk, db, you really shouldn’t do things like that. In fact, the chart you posted was up to date for when it was posted, as it data through May 2015 and was posted in June 2015. Your chart above leaves off nearly a year of data – and of course data you don’t want to show, since it completely undermines your point.

    • Burl, fascinating stuff, here, and very interesting. Have you got any references?
      Alva, again, if the ipcc only claims that as little as half of recent warming is anthropogenic, then warming pryor to this is natural…
      Phil, the 0 degree (anomaly) is for the current temperature. Also, in the saturation graph the “doubling of CO2” refers to 560 ppm (agreed that the graph appears a bit scant, though). I assume this is the same phil who harps on bart’s graph for using the mauna loa derivative with southern hemisphere data (?). WFT has no other such derivative plot and bart uses southern hemishpere data because it’s a very good match with the satellite data (which doesn’t cover the entirety of MLO). I see a pattern here… you need to get your head out of your (sand) and stop baselessly nitpicking graphs.
      Chris, you’re just flat out “trolling” here !!!
      See y’all at the next UAH temperature update… fonzie

      • Fonzie, thanks for clarifying the definition of trolling. I was not aware that it included pointing out the someone’s statement was inaccurate.

      • Chris is never right. He says:
        …I was not aware that it included pointing out the someone’s statement was inaccurate.
        As I stated, I linked to a chart that showed 2015, not 2016. This is only May; there are seven more months to go. As I said, when 2016 ends I’ll post that year, too.
        If it wasn’t for Chris’s incessant nitpicking, all he would have left is his silly logical fallacy of appealing to corrupted authorities. I suppose if they told him to jump off a bridge, he wouldn’t question it.
        But for readers who aren’t that mentally challenged, I’ll point out once again that global T change over the past century+ is neither unusual nor unprecedented. It has all happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree — and when CO2 was much lower.
        That fact is always ignored by the alarmist cult. They don’t like it when someone points out that the planet has just been through the most benign “Goldilocks” temperature regime of the entire temperature record:
        http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg
        As recently as just before the present Holocene, temperatures changed by ±TENS of whole degrees — within only a decade or two:
        http://oi43.tinypic.com/1zoanbc.jpg
        The alarmist crowd’s belief that CO2 is the ‘control knob’ of global T has been falsified by the real world. They just cannot admit it.

      • afonzarelli May 14, 2016 at 7:59 am
        Phil, the 0 degree (anomaly) is for the current temperature.

        If you’re referring to the Greenland ice core data from Ally, you’re wrong, the current temperature at that site is about 1.5ºC on that scale.
        Also, in the saturation graph the “doubling of CO2” refers to 560 ppm (agreed that the graph appears a bit scant, though).
        If you’re referring to the CO2 graph from steely, since it’s a log graph all doublings in pCO2 will result in the same temperature increase. stealey’s graph appears to be for a log coefficient of ~0.3ºC/doubling, of course it’s not explicitly stated on the graph. stealey didn’t appear to realize this based on our discussion, which has since been erased for some reason!
        I assume this is the same phil who harps on bart’s graph for using the mauna loa derivative with southern hemisphere data (?). WFT has no other such derivative plot and bart uses southern hemishpere data because it’s a very good match with the satellite data (which doesn’t cover the entirety of MLO).
        I don’t recall that, perhaps a while ago?
        I see a pattern here… you need to get your head out of your (sand) and stop baselessly nitpicking graphs.
        Or perhaps stealey should stop posting flawed graphs?

    • Chris says:
      You posted a chart from Steven Goddard…
      So you can click on a chart and get info.
      And:
      …without any reference to when that was posted. You could’ve indicated that, but did not. So I went and found it myself.
      Yes, I could have done your homework for you. But you’re such a whiny little pest that you can just go do it yourself. Just like you can find any number of charts that show current temperature rises.
      You do your endless nitpicking because you have no credible science to back up your alarmist beliefs. If you had verifiable facts showing that human emissions were causing runaway global warming, you would post them.
      But you have no facts. You have nothing. So you endlessly nitpick, and deflect, and argue with your own strawmen, and constantly commit logical fallacies. No wonder you’ve lost the science debate.

  28. Alvahillbilly:
    You wrote “And to clarify my view, k am saying aerosols are only ever a negative forcing effect, and never positive”
    You need to think of them as an umbrella. When the umbrella is open (aerosols present), cooling results. When the umbrellas is closed (aerosols diminished or gone) the sunshine is less hindered and surface warming occurs-a positive forcing.
    Surely you can understand this. It is a very simple concept.

    • To be correct, a diagram would have aerosols as a moderating effect on the positive forcing of sunshine. Question: can that moderating effect ever INCREASE the forcing of sunshine? Of course not.

    • If I remove a negative forcing, global T goes up. That’s practically a definition of a negative forcing.
      According to you every positive forcing is also a negative one, because if you remove it T goes down. So you are completely removing the entire concept of positive and negative forcing. It’s almost like saying that there can’t be positive or negative numbers. I think you have a fundamental misconception.

    • In your example, you are starting with a large cooling effect (umbrella open), and finishing with a small cooling effect (umbrella closed). And the temperature goes up, because the other warming effects now outbalance the cooling effects. But the umbrella can never itself cause warming, only cooling.
      It should be obvious by its nature – it can only ever reduce, or attenuate incoming sunlight. It cannot amplify it!
      It’s like saying that a negative number can be large (and negative), or small (and still negative). No matter how much is varies between large and small, it’s always less than zero.
      How could the umbrella ever produce a long-term warming trend? It cannot. It can produce a long-term cooling trend, by getting bigger and bigger. But warming requires it to get smaller and smaller. But it cannot go smaller than zero!

      • Alvahillbilly:
        Let me point out (again) that the climatic response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo and Mount Hudson eruptions proves that my contention is correct.
        The eruptions injected approx. 23 Megatonnes of SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, which circled the globe for about 2 years (the open umbrella), cooling the earth by about 0.55 deg. C. before finally settling out. Cooling due to the presence of SO2 aerosols is a negative forcing in the IPPC diagram of radiative forcings..
        As the aerosols settled out, temperatures recovered to pre-eruption levels (the closed umbrella), strictly due to the removal of the dimming SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere, This allowed the incoming solar radiation to strike the earth’s surface with greater intensity. Thus, the removal of dimming SO2 aerosols is a positive forcing, in that
        it results in more surface warming. This forcing, however, is not a component of the IPCC diagram, a serious error because the climate sensitivity to their removal is so large..
        Back in 1975, annual anthroogenic SO2 aerosol emissions totaled about 131 Megatonnes. The bulk of these emissions came from relatively constant sources, such as power plants, foundries, vehicle exhausts, and the like. Since they were constantly being renewed, the atmosphere was never free of their dimming effects, until they were either shut down or modified to reduce emissions. The projected temperature rise due to reductions in the amount of .these SO2 aeroosol emissions is essentially a perfect match to the actual rise in anomalous global temperatures over the years..
        You seem to have difficulty understanding that “closing an open umbrella ” will cause warming to occur underneath.. But you do have a lot of company.

      • @Burl henry
        “You seem to have difficulty understanding that “closing an open umbrella ” will cause warming to occur underneath.. But you do have a lot of company.”
        no, I understand it perfectly. Removing a negative forcing will make it warmer. I said that in my comment above if you read it carefully. What you seem to not be able to understand is that removing a negative forcing, is not the same as adding a positive forcing. Just as making a large negative number less negative does not mean the same as making it positive.
        If my car is parked on a hill, and I release the brake, it will accelerate downhill. My brake’s are not causing an acceleration, something else is. Brakes can never cause the car to speed up, only slow down. According to your logic, I’ve just ‘proved’ that brakes have a positive effect on speed.
        This is really basic stuff. The umbrella can only ever reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the earth. They cannot INCREASE it. So there is no possible way for it to warm the earth. When you close the umbrella, it is something else that’s causing the warming.
        Imagine the following scenario: we have an earth in equilibrium at a temperature T. There are no aerosols. If we add aerosols, the temperature drops. If we remove them, it goes back up to T. I give you the ability to add and remove aerosols as you wish. By changing aerosols only, can you ever get the temperature to stabilise above T?
        The answer is no. It’s because aerosols only cause cooling, not warming. If you add cooling and the remove it, you haven’t created a net warming effect. Can you really not see that adding cooling and removing is not the same as adding warming? If I instead allowed you to control an actual warming effect – like greenhouse gases – then you can definitely get the temperature above T.

        • alvahillbilly:
          You wrote “Imagine the following scenario: we have an earth in equilibrium at a temperature T.There are no aerosols. If we add aerosols, the temperature drops. If we remolve them, it goes back up to T I give you the ability to add and remove aerosols as you wish. By changing aerosols only, can you ever get the temperature to stabilise above T?
          For your example, the answer is, of course, No.
          However, as of 2011, worldwide anthropogenic SO2 emissions totaled 101 Megatonnes.
          It is the reduction in the amount of these emissions (and not the accumulation of CO2) that is .causing the rise in global temperatures, at the rate of approx. .02 deg. C. of temp. rise for each net Megatonne of reduction in the emissions (in the absence of any temporary natural change due to El Nino’s, La Nina’s, or large volcanic eruptions).
          Whether removing a negative forcing can be considered a positive forcing is a moot question–the climatic response is the same.

      • “For your example, the answer is, of course, No.”
        then aerosols are a negative forcing – that is a definition of what a negative forcing is. If they pushed the temperature above T, they would be a positive forcing. So the IPCC diagram is entirely correct.
        “Whether removing a negative forcing can be considered a positive forcing is a moot question–the climatic response is the same.”
        It’s not a moot point at all, it’s an important one. It means, for example, that aerosols can never explain the net warming between 1880 and now – not even in principle. They may explain the variations – the slowing down of warming – but not the net warming effect. So we are always left with an unexplained net warming effect. There are only so many things that can produce net warming, and CO2 is one of them. There really aren’t many others.
        If I’m going downhill and dab my brakes on and off, and at the end find I’m going faster, it’s pretty obvious that something is making me accelerate, and it’s not the brakes.
        I made another point earlier, but it got lost, so I’ll repeat it. It seems clear that whatever is causing the net warming does not lie outside the earth, i.e. cannot be the sun or interstellar dust or whatever. How do we know this? Because the upper layers of the atmosphere are actually cooling. Why would they be cooling? The same reason that your loft gets colder if you put loft insulation in. You have reduced how much heat is getting transmitted to the air in the loft. This finding suggests very strongly that this is a greenhouse effect. How else would you explain it?

        • Alvahillbilly:
          Again: You wrote “imagine the following scenario: we have an earth in equilibrium at a temperature T. There are no aerosols. If we add aerosols, the temperature drops. If we remove them, it goes back up to T. I give you the ability to add and remove aerosols as you wish. By changing aerosols only, can you ever get the temperature to stabilize above T?
          And I replied “For your example, the answer is, of course, No.”
          However, consider the real world, also stabilized at temperature T, but with 103 Megatonnes of SO2 emissions present, as in 2010. If I remove 2 Megatonnes of aerosols (as happened between 2010 and 2011), the temperature will stabilize at a higher temperature, in this case T + .04 deg. C (as also happened).
          In this example, the removal of aerosols did have a positive forcing–they caused the temperature to increase.
          Can you finally understand this?.
          It is unfortunate, but ANY reduction in SO2 emissions will cause the “background” temperature to rise at the rate of .02 deg. C. for each net Megatonne of reduction in global SO2 emissions.
          And nothing can be done to reduce temperatures short of re-polluting the air.. .

      • ahillbilly says:
        There are only so many things that can produce net warming, and CO2 is one of them. There really aren’t many others.
        How would you know that?

      • @db
        then name some of them. And let’s see if they can explain the warming. You start.

      • @Burl Henry
        Either you were not reading what I wrote, or you’re not understanding it. I repeatedly said that removing aerosols would make the temp increase. I get that.
        What youre missing is that this increase can never push the temperature above what it was before the aerosols were added. And yet in the real world, this is what happened. We increased aerosols, and then decreased then. And the temperature was higher at the end than at the start. This cannot be due to the aerosols as they only produce cooling, not warming. SO WHAT CAUSED THE NET WARMING??
        It cannot be something outside the earth, otherwise the upper atmosphere would have got warmer. It got colder. How can we explain this?
        Please don’t tell me again that reducing aerosols made it warmer. I know that. That doesn’t make them a positive forcing. Again, you are saying that my brakes have a positive effect on my cars speed. Doesn’t it bother you that that is clearly complete nonsense? Are you happy to have an understanding that lead to completely nonsensical conclusions? Serious question: what’s your level of science education?

        • alvahillbilly:
          You wrote: “I repeatedly said that removing aerosols would make the temperature increase”
          Then you wrote . “This cannot be due to aerosols as they only produce cooling, not warming .SO WHAT CAUSED THE NET WARMING”.
          Obviously, it is due to the removal of those cooling aerosols.
          If SO2 aerosols are present, there is a cooling effect.
          If these aerosols are removed, there is a warming effect (as proven by the climatic response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption).
          There is a reservoir of around 100 Megatonnes of SO2 aerosol emissions in our atmosphere. As they are removed, temperatures will naturally rise, driving temperatures ever higher until the reservoir is exhausted.
          This is what has caused the net warming since circa 1975.
          I leave it to your brilliance to explain the earlier warming trend, in the complete absence of any significant greenhouse gas emissions, and with no decrease in SO2 aerosols.. Perhaps black carbon, as an earthly source?

      • @Burl
        “If SO2 aerosols are present, there is a cooling effect.
        If these aerosols are removed, there is a warming effect (as proven by the climatic response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption).”
        Yes, but how much warming?? Can it produce enough warming to push the temperature ABOVE what it was before you added the aerosols??
        The answer is no!! We already established that. So no matter how many times you add and remove aerosols, you can’t land up with a temperature that is higher than when you started! Come on for god’s sake, you must see this!
        Yes, if you add a cooing effect it gets colder.
        Yes, if you remove it, it gets warmer.
        But it does not get so much warmer that it’s warmer than when you started!!
        Otherwise you have found a magical free way to heat things up. That’s like saying I can make my flat hotter by opening the window to the cold, and then closing it again. Wow, free heating!
        The earlier warming was probably caused by CO2, which did not have zero emission rates prior to 1975.
        “This is what has caused the net warming since circa 1975.”
        But that must be offset against the cooling that must have happened when we introduced the SO2!
        I ask your brilliance: why wasn’t the earth getting progressively colder as our SO2 emission increased?

        • Alvahillbilly:
          You wrote “Yes, but how much warming? Can it produce enough warming to push the temperature ABOVE what it was before you added (you meant “removed”) the aerosols.? The answer in no!!”
          No, the answer is YES!
          To repeat the example that I had given you earlier:
          In 1975, Global anthropogenic SO2 emissions totaled approx. 131.4 Megatonnes. By 2010, due to Global Clean Air efforts, they had dropped to 101 Megatonnes, a decrease of 30.4 Megatonnes.
          Using the .02 deg. C. Climate Sensitivity factor derived from the 1991 volcanic eruptions, 30.4 x .02 = 0.608 deg. C. of expected anomalous warming over the period 1975 – 2011. NASA reported a value of 0.60 deg. C. .This was accurate to within
          .008 deg. C. over a 36 year period (leaving NO room for any additional warming due to greenhouse gasses).
          .
          Now, according to NASA, the average Land-Ocean Global Temperature (Jan-Dec), with respect to the average of the 1951-1980 base period, was ..(-).02 deg. C.in 1975
          By 2011, after the removal of 30.4 Megatonnes of SO2 aerosol emissions, temperatures had RISEN by 0.62 deg. C, well above the starting value. This was because the cleaner air allowed the sunshine to strike the earth’s surface with greater intensity…
          A bit technical, but it proves the point that I have been making, that the reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions is the cause of all of the anomalous warming that has occurred..
          You also asked “why wasn’t the earth getting progressively cooler as our SO2 emissions increased?”.
          Actually, it did, in the run-up in emissions from roughly the mid 1950’s to the peak of 131.2 Megatonnes in 1972. The cooling was mostly a northern hemisphere phenomenon, and there were worries that we might be heading into another ice age at that time,

      • @Burl
        And again you fail to understand.
        If you add cooling, and then remove it, you cannot land up warmer than before you started.
        The fact that the experimental data shows that we DID land up warmer, shows something very clearly: that there is another factor causing underlying warming!
        If aerosols were the only thing going on, we would expect the magnitude of the cooling period to match pretty much with the magnitude of the warming period. They did not match. The cooling was smaller, and the warming bigger. So therefore there is an underlying warming effect, which is NOT the aerosols.
        Again, if I open my window to the cold, and close it again, and find that my flat it hotter than when I started, there is only one explanation. Something else is adding heat. When I say NET warming, the word ‘net’ means comparing the end of a process with its beginning. The end is when aerosols are low again. The beginning is when they were originally at the low point. ‘Net’ means what’s the effect of adding cooling and then removing it. It should be roughly zero. The fact that we get a ‘net’ warming, shows that there is another process happening, one that is adding heat. Aerosols cannot add heat.
        I have no other way of explaining this, so I’m going to have to give up now. Either you understand it or you don’t.

        • Alvahillbilly:
          You said “If you add cooling, and then remove it, you cannot land up warmer than before you started”
          and “So therefore there is an underlying warming effect, which is NOT the aerosols”
          What you are failing to understand is that aerosols, per se, do not cause any warming or cooling.. All that they do is attenuate the sun’s rays, causing cooling when they are present, and increase the surface warming of the earth, when they are reduced or removed.
          Their behavior is exactly as happens on a sunny day which drifting clouds. When there is a cloud overhead, the temperature underneath is cooler than when it passes by and allows full sunshine to strike the earth..
          As aerosols are removed, there is less attenuation and temperatures trend higher, as the data clearly shows.
          I hope that this helps your understanding..

      • @Burl.
        I’ve given up. You are immune to logic.
        Try posting this on Judith Curry’s site, maybe someone there can get you to understand the massive hole in your reasoning.

        • Alvahillbilly:
          You said “maybe someone there can explain the massive hole in your reasoning”
          I am clueless as to what hole you are talking about!
          The model which I have proposed will project the average global temperature for any year, 1975-present (where SO2 emissions are known) with an accuracy of less than a tenth percent of actuality
          There is no other model which can .even come close to such accuracy.over a 36 year period.
          As Karl Popper wrote, “scientific theories must be falsifiable (that is,empirically testable), and that prediction is the gold standard for their validation”.
          This model meets both criteria.
          I am frankly amazed at your inability to understand what I have written.

          • Burl Henry says:
            I am frankly amazed at your inability to understand what I have written.
            It’s pretty clear, because even I could understand it. ☺

      • @Burl
        clue: try working out the precise predictions your model makes for 1880-1975. I mean actual numbers. Do they also match the data?

        • Alvahillbilly:
          I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that my model is SPECIFIC to the period circa 1975 to the present, which is the period of most urgent interest, considering that .CO2 is wrongly being blamed for the current warming, and that the EPA is bent upon shutting down more power plants and further reducing SO2 emissions.
          Nothing in the past has any real bearing upon the current situation, which is caused by efforts to clean the air. To fault my model for not explaining the past is sheer idiocy.

      • @Burl
        And yes I realise they’re weren’t accurate records. But we know that SO2 would have been far lower in 1880 ish compared to 1975. So just pick any reasonable figure, and see what your model predicts. And use the same climate sensitivity value. Does your model predict that 1975 is warmer or cooler than 1880?

      • @Burl
        to propose a model that makes completely nonsensical predictions OUTSIDE a narrow time period is idiocy. The laws of physics did not change in 1975. Aerosols did not magically change their behaviour in 1975. So whether you like it or not, your model DOES make predictions about the previous time period. And those predictions are wrong. And that is why we can reject your model.
        What you are doing is cherry-picking, the thing you are told explicitly not to do. The reason is that you can land up with completely stupid results. I could cherry-pick some other period of data and find that temperature is completely predicted by any random variable. But a glance at the wider dataset would show that to be false.
        Instead of arguing against me, why not actually try it, and see for yourself what your model would predict? It might help you learn why the model was never going to work in the first place.

      • @Burl
        The bottom line remains the same: if reducing aerosols now is causing warming, there must be an equal amount of cooling when they were increased. The NET effect is zero, as I have repeatedly said. The data shows very clearly a NET warming

      • The data shows very clearly a NET warming
        I agree.
        But you overstep when you say that most, or all of that global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions.
        The evidence is lacking, and there are other, more credible reasons. In fact, there isn’t much evidence at all that the rise in CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. That’s just a measurement-free belief.
        Beliefs like that are more akin to religion than to science. Here, we need data. Measurements are data. But there are no measurements quantifying AGW. Your belief is not sufficiently convincing. And since belief is all you’ve got, it convinces skeptics that they’re on the right track when they question your CO2=cAGW supposition.

  29. db, even when I point out your falsehood, you still double down. Incredible. Here is what you said: This particular one uses whole years, and 2015 was the last whole year. When 2016 is concluded I’ll post an updated chart.”
    You said whole years. What you posted was through May, 2015. That is not a whole year. So what you said was false.

    • Chris,
      You have never pointed out a falsehood by me, because I haven’t written any. No doubt that’s psychological projection on your part.
      When I said whole years, I was pointing out that 2016 isn’t even half over. Your failure to understand that isn’t my fault. As I wrote, when 2016 is over I’ll post that chart.
      In the mean time, you’re just nitpicking as usual. That’s because you’ve got nothin’ but your debunked beliefs, and they get more ridiculous all the time.

      • No, you said “this particular one uses whole years”, in reference to your chart from 2015. Except that your chart was not for full years. This is not nitpicking, it demonstrates that your reason for not posting 2016 YTD data was completely groundless.

        • Keep nitpicking, chris. It’s all you’ve got. Because Planet Earth is making a fool of you. The chart I posted ended with the last whole year; 2015.
          Your reading ability fails. I said I was posting a chart of the available whole years. You are the only one who couldn’t understand that 2016 isn’t a whole year yet.
          You’re in no position to read things into what I wrote that are clearly not there, which means your lack of understanding is your problem, not mine.

      • Stealey, this here is the reason why i’ve “checked out”… it’s at the point where everybody is just going round in circles. (not you though, burl !) You’ve been very enlightening; thanks much and see you next UAH update… fonz

    • Werner, the plot that db posted was from Steven Goddard, and was posted on 9 June 2015. It has data only through May, which is what it looks different from you chart which goes through year end 2015.

      • You’re very welcome, Werner. No, the accompanying text reads: “There is no hiatus. Temperatures are dropping and Earth is entering a cooling period.” That’s the only text associated with the graph, which is one of several graphs posted in an entry on 9 June 2015. If you’d like to look at it, go to page 187 on his wordpress site.

  30. Temperatures are dropping and Earth is entering a cooling period.
    I wouldn’t know; I don’t predict the future. What I do know is that global warming paused for many years. That’s a verifiable fact, despite the new talking points.

Comments are closed.