Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (see Update at the end)
I had tweeted the following:
Various people either liked or retweeted this, including my mad mate and human lightning rod, James Delingpole. This post started because someone named Robin Whitlock tweeted the following:
Delingpole is a knuckledragger, pure and simple. It’s a wonder his brain hasn’t shrivelled by now, or perhaps it has…
To which I replied:
Ah, schoolboy insults. They make you look so sophisticated and wise.
Sadly, Mr. Whitlock declined the opportunity to actually say what was wrong with James Delingpole’s ideas, and instead said;
Okay, Mr Eschenbach, let’s see how much you actually know about it. Debate CC with me if you dare
Now, I’m always happy to debate climate change, but not in 140-character chunks. So I said:
I’m happy to debate, although I don’t see how I can do so on Twitter. My blog is available. What do you wish to debate?
Of course, nothing is that simple. Before debating the ideas, the charming man has to start with the seemingly obligatory ad hominem arguments about my education, my ancestry, and my general unfitness for human consumption, viz:
Ha, okay, just seen this. That tells me everything for a start: You’re a ‘professional’ climate change denier
A “professional climate change denier”? If so, where’s my dang paycheck? I am an amateur scientist, and proud of it. I’m one of the few amateur scientists to have anything peer-reviewed published in Nature Magazine. It was only a “Brief Communications Arising”, but it was solidly peer-reviewed. In addition, at present, I have more than sixty citations to my publications in the scientific journals … not bad for a self-taught man with absolutely no scientific education.
He followed this with:
Construction Manager and former Accounts Manager. That is, not a climate scientist.
This scientifically challenged person thinks that reading a very slanted bio written by my enemies tells him “everything” about the scientific validity of my claims … yeah, that’s the ticket. No need to debate the issues, just accuse your opponent of being unqualified … amazingly, this good fellow actually seems to think this makes the slightest difference as to whether my scientific claims are true.
He then goes on to a series of tweets, which I’ve condensed into one for easy reading:
So, let’s go on to some of the statements mentioned here. First, the “eight tenths of a degree” statement. That’s being way too optimistic. Even 2 deg C is probably too optimistic. Most climate science says we’re heading in the direction of 4 or even 6 degrees C. Furthermore, at 2 degrees C, melting permafrost releases methane into the atmosphere, which is even more dangerous than CO2.
I also see that you draw on climategate again, when the scientists involved were cleared of any wrongdoing by several investigations. You say that greenland has only lost a small fraction of it’s total ice mass but the evidence indicates that Greenland’s ice loss is accelerating and will contribute to sea level rise in the order of metres over the next few centuries.
OK … let’s take that one at a time. First, I have no idea which “eight tenths of a degree” he’s talking about. Apparently, he’s talking about some claimed warming by 2100, but from memory, I’ve never claimed that it would be 0.8°C. I’m not sure what I’m missing here …
He then says regarding Climategate that “the scientists involved were cleared of any wrongdoing by several investigations.” Because I was actually discussed in the Climategate emails, which revealed that the people at UEA lied to my face, I can assure you that the whitewashes that were done were pathetic imitations of a real investigation. In fact, the Brits said that the only reason that criminal charges weren’t laid because of their lies was that the statute of limitations had expired. And Acton’s “investigation” of the actions of Briffa and Jones never interviewed either one of them … investigations? Don’t make me laugh. See Steve McIntyre’s excellent blog for dozens of well-informed and researched articles on the subject. I fear Mr. Whitlock is far out of his depth on this one, as both Steve and I were involved in the actual event.
He next claims, without attribution or citation, that “most climate science” (whatever that might be) says we’ll warm by “4 or even 6 degrees C“. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find folks other than wild alarmists who make that claim, so I’d be interested in his sources.
Finally, he says that if the arctic warms by 2°C it will somehow release huge amounts of methane … again, this is not scientifically supported. Instead, it is based on … wait for it … climate models:
The new study found the rate of old carbon released during the past 60 years to be relatively small. Model projections conducted by other studies expect much higher carbon release rates—from 100 to 900 times greater—for its release during the upcoming 90 years. This suggests that current rates are still well below what may lay ahead in the future of a warmer Arctic.
This is typical of all of the claimed dangers of CO2. We have computer models, we have lots of alarmist claims, we have failed sequential doom-casting, in the above quote we have “this suggests” and the other usual weasel words, “might happen” and “could lead to” and the like … but what we don’t have is any evidence that anything out of the ordinary is happening. Yes, people say that we’ll get a ten foot sea level rise by 2100 … but there is no sign of acceleration in the rate of rise despite the warming of the last three centuries.. Similarly, people say we’ll get mega-methane from arctic warming, but actual studies show no such increase happening despite the warming of the last three centuries. The bizarre truth is that we are studying a claimed phenomenon (increased warming due to humans) when we have no actual evidence that anything out of the ordinary is occurring. No unusual warming. No increase in extreme events. No increase in rainfall. No change in sea level rise. No increase in methane. If Mr. Whitlock has any such evidence, I hope he produces it.
Finally, in general the claimed sensitivity of the earth to CO2 has been falling. It used to be 3°C per doubling, then 2°C per doubling, and now it’s about 1°C per doubling. Given the claimed future increases in CO2 (which may never come to pass), this pretty much rules out his four to six degree C warming scenario.
==============================================
But enough of what passes for a debate on Mr. Whitlock’s planet. Here’s the part that drives me nuts in discussions like this:
• Nobody knows why the globe was generally warmer in Roman times
• Nobody knows why the globe generally cooled after Roman times
• Nobody knows why the globe generally warmed up again in Medieval times
• Nobody knows why the globe greatly cooled after Medieval times, leading to the “Little Ice Age” in the 1600s/1700s.
• Nobody knows why the Little Ice Age didn’t descend into a real Ice Age.
• Nobody knows why the earth started generally warming at about 0.5°C per century since the Little Ice Age.
• Nobody knows why this warming continued through the 20th century.
• Nobody knows whether the ~ 0.5°C warming of the 21st century is 100% natural and just a continuance of the warming of previous two centuries, or whether some or all of of the warming is due to humans.
• Nobody knows why there has been a two-decade “hiatus” in the ongoing three centuries of warming.
Given our total inability to understand or explain the climate of the past, the idea that a Tinkertoy computer model of the climate can tell us what will happen in the next hundred years is … well … let me describe that claim as “extraordinarily optimistic” rather than say “stunningly foolish” …
I’ve invited Mr. Whitlock to continue the discussion here, to avoid the 140-character limit. Let’s see if he is man enough to step up to the plate.
If he does, please keep the ad hominems not just down but out. This place is, or should be, about debating the science and not debating the man or woman behind the science.
Best regards to all, including Mr. Whitlock,
w.
PS—When you comment please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING, so we can all be clear on both your subject and who you are addressing.
[UPDATE]
I assume I’m supposed to be frightened … but in fact I’m mystified. I ask why, despite his bluster, he hasn’t shown up to debate. He replies that he won’t tell me how he is “deploying his forces”.
Say what?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“It’s important to ascertain who has real climate science qualifications and who doesn’t”
Does Robin realize this is the same tired garbage we’ve been exposed to for 2 decades?
Andrew
His claim is of course nonsense. There is nothing complicated about understanding the basics of climate. In fact, it is not a real science. It uses aspects of real science from dozens of other fields. The funny thing is that experts in many of these areas are skeptics.
He doesn’t care. All he needs is an excuse to maintain his belief system. The fact his excuse is laughable nonsense is beyond him. He can’t give up his belief system because it would make him an outcast in his social group. This is more important to these fools than the truth.
This is a big call on your part. You cannot be half pregnant.
Either CO2 is a GHG or not.
This is an issue that all us skeptics need to acknowledge though reading the comments I suspect that there is a schism here.
CO2 is a GHG. Water vapor is a GHG in bigger proportion.
Both help the atmosphere they are in reach the temperature it is.
You cannot believe in one and not the other, that is denying the science.
You can deny both but then you are not being scientific or helpful at all.
Observational empirical evidence is there every day when you watch the temperature rise with the sun coming up and when you study the effect of clouds on trapping heat.
The debate is simple. what is the effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Which is not a doubling of all the GHG by the way, only a small overall increase.
What feedbacks apply.
Why has the expected “scientific” level not occurred.
Why has the unscientific positive feedback loops of models not occurred.
Denying that CO2 is incapable of having any effect may feel good is a point of view as extreme as any warmist position.
Explaining why it has little to no effect is the debate.
Willis you could put up the same questions and debate without the reluctant bride and get an ad hominem reduced, more nuanced discussion going but this is fun anyway.
angech,
“You can deny both but then you are not being scientific or helpful at all.”
The problem is that climate science itself isn’t very helpful in determining what has what effect.
The science sucks, so I think you are expecting too much from people who try to form opinions about all this.
Andrew
I mean, really, what tools does climate science have to educate people with? Graphs of averages of a weather system no one understands? Black Box Simulations? Speculative doomsday claims? Climate is a dubious concept to begin with. It only exists an after-the-fact result of analysis. There’s nothing for climate science to demonstrate. It’s a dysfunctional psychiatrist trying to fix your crazy uncle.
Andrew
Bad Andrew But a good commentator.
‘ I think you are expecting too much from people who try to form opinions about all this.”
Not at all. My expectations are rather low.
For example we had Steve McIntyre come in to make some comments and Rud putting up some questions but little debate when there really was a chance.
Yet we have a range of views where some are frightened, insecure or unscientific to ordain that CO2 has no effect.
I feel it has little effect but we need people to declare themselves, scientifically and then have a scientific debate.
No CO2 never does anything and is not a GHG.
No CO2 will cause runaway global warming tomorrow.
Just plain vanilla use proper observations, proper science, and try to work out more about climate and all it’s triggers plus recognize that life has survived through a whole lot more complexities than a little transient puff of natural CO2.
“The debate is simple. what is the effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
The question should be: What is the *net* effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Theory says CO2 should add some warming, but there are other things involved in the process like negative feedbacks to CO2 warming which might mean that any CO2 warming is offset by negative feedback and there may be no net heating of the atmosphere from additional CO2. The theory that CO2 will heat the atmosphere does not operate in a vacuum. That’s only part of the process we need to look at.
So far, temperatures are within natural variability. We are cooler today than in the 1930’s when there wasn’t nearly as much human-caused CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyone who claims to see signs of human-caused climate change due to CO2, in our current weather patterns is delusional. They couldn’t prove it if their lives depended on proving it.
“TA
April 30, 2017 at 8:27 am
“The debate is simple. what is the effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
The question should be: What is the *net* effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Theory says CO2 should add some warming, but there are other things involved in the process like negative feedbacks to CO2 warming which might mean that any CO2 warming is offset by negative feedback and there may be no net heating of the atmosphere from additional CO2. The theory that CO2 will heat the atmosphere does not operate in a vacuum. That’s only part of the process we need to look at.”
According to Wiki, the theory says Co2 does:
“carbon dioxide, 9–26%”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
So, as I understand it, 9 -26 % of 33 K.
And as I understand the stated theory, all greenhouse gases cause + 33 C.
So, 33 times .09 – .26 is 2.97 K to 8,58 K.
So the existing level of CO2 [say, 300 to 400 PPM] and if removed all CO2, it would cool planet earth by 2.97 to 8.58 C. Or 15 – 2.97 to 8.58 is global average temperature of 12.03 to 6.42 C.
Or roughly make Earth have average temperature of about 8 C.
But some climate experts claim if include “the feedbacks’ [which according to their idea, CO2 causes there to be water vapor on planet earth] removing all CO2 would cause earth to be colder by 33 C. 15 C – 33 K being about -18 C, Or removing all CO2 would make earth average temperature be -18 C rather than 15 C.
Now, as far as doubling CO2. Most believing in this theory [don’t count me as one] believe a doubling of pre-industial level CO2 [a very vague term btw] causes 1.2 C plus water vapor increase cause by the “forcing” of doubling CO2. So 260 to 290 ppm x 2 causes 1.2 C from “CO2 forcing” plus the 2 to 5 C from water vapor increase [feedback].
{and theory doesn’t including negative feedbacks- other it’s general vagueness could said to “allow’ for it].
Also according to theory, no other factors cause increase or decrease of planet’s average temperature other than greenhouse gases and the amount that a planet reflects sunlight.
Ie, Earth gets 1360 Watt per square meter from the sun. Divided by 4 it’s 340 watts “averaged” and reflects about 100 watts on average. leaving 240 Watts.per square meter.
Or of the 1360 watts 400 watts is reflected and 960 water per square meter disk area divided by 4 due to spherical planet.
And Earth on average radiates 240 watts per square meter. And perfect blackbody which radiate 240 watts is -18 C.
TA April 30, 2017 at 8:27 am
” We are cooler today than in the 1930’s when there wasn’t nearly as much human-caused CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Do not think this is correct if we are talking about the world atmosphere temperature.It might apply to parts of the USA but the best evidence assessments show that we are warmer than say 150 years ago and warmer than in the 1930’s.
Examples.
Eugene WR Gallun Are you aware that since coming out of the Little Ice Age on average every third year has produced a record temperature?
SAMURAI Since the end of the Little Ice Age (1280~1850), we’ve ENJOYED 0.83C (HADCRUT4) of warming recovery
jclarke341 Considering that we have been generally warming for nearly 300 years.
Reasonable people.
If you wish to deny the reasonable evidence that we have then no rational discussion is possible. Unadjusted Temperatures were slightly cooler back then unless yiou can prove differently
Because, angech, the main doubling was from 11ppmv to 22 ppmv. Every doubling since has been increasingly less significant. The science behind carbon arc welding.
Subsequent doublings, from possibly @200ppmv whenever that ‘was’, will have an overall cooling effect (my very messy guesswork), there will be only @one more doubling from us burning things before we wean ourselves off fossil fuels – or die out.
imvho, wrt CO2 – CS ≤ 0.0K
sarc/ As with all the finest climate prognostications I will be long gone by the time someone shows them to be junk 😉 /sarc.
CO2 is a GHG, just not very potent currently.
Henry Galt
Every doubling since has been increasingly less significant.
Subsequent doublings, from possibly @200ppmv whenever that ‘was’, will have an overall cooling effect.
Sigh.
A robinwhitlock comment from a skeptic.
The warming trend upwards will lessen.
It will still get warmer
Overall .
An overall warming effect.
This blind refusal to stick to the facts.
The problem with people like Patrick is they wrongly believe that what scientists say has to be correct and that to engage in a debate on a subject you always have to be a SME. Both are incorrect assumptions; in subjects like climate you need only an engineering or scientific background and intelligence. The sceptical position is yes, we understand the theory but can clearly see that the predicted results aren’t happening. The sceptical position also recognises the incompatibility of the scientific and political aspects.
Inviting Mr. Whitlock to debate you here is like the time I invited Bobby Russo to my gang’s clubhouse and fifty of us beat him with baseball bats for twenty minutes.
[metaphorically of course, we don’t condone violence here -mod]
Are you writing this from prison?
Yes, it was a metaphor and entirely fictional to illustrate how foolish he would be to debate here. It’s just the wrong forum.
No, it is the RIGHT forum. I’ve seen all sorts of scientists in this blog over the years, many of them heavy weights with world wide recognition debating the most detailed science. Nor is Mr. Whitlock confined to go it alone, this is a pretty open blog, he could easily bring fifty of his friends with him. He won’t. Here’s why:
1. Upthread, Mr Whitlock said “I don’t do the science myself, because I am not a scientist.“. So, his ability to debate the science himself is, by his own admission, non-existent.
2. He probably won’t be able to find any of his science friends that he professes to trust to come with him. They’ve been making their proclamations, refusing to expose their data and code, and refusing to debate for years. Their only argument has been “trust us, we’re climate scientists”. They won’t show, and if they do;
3. An actual discussion of science may actually break out, in which case an observer like Whitlock will have no choice but to conclude that what the science says, what the IPCC science says, and what the journalists say are very different matters.
If by some miracle, Whitlock does bring some friends to the table, I suggest heavy moderation or perhaps breaking the topics up into separate threads (wouldn’t THAT be something, an actual debate about actual science!) With the use of comment threading, detailed back and forth on multiple issues between multiple commenters gets really hard to follow.
DH, you don’t have to be a scientist to understand ‘climate science’ and be able to debate it. You do have to take the time to understand what climate science claims, and what support there is. Start with IPCC, and then branch out find its logical errors, data omissions, and reliance on fundamentally flawed papers. Most skeptics do (to some extent, skydragons and such excepted), most warmunists don’t. Robin Whitlock has proven himself a classical warmunist, which is why he is a content no-show.
I posed 8 simple climate propositions to him upthread. Fact based sound bites. He must have read them because he commented to Willis below them. He has not responded to any, anywhere. Control knob, attribution, SLR, polar bears, greening, SREX, … simple core basics. Nothing fancy or complicated. Now, if perchance he did study up on those basics, he could not help being converted to skepticism. Which is why he won’t. Nor will any of his friends, including climate science friends. Because each sound bite is a carefully and simply crafted, easily verifiable inconvenient truth challenging the core of his ‘settled science’ warmunist religion.
ristvan April 30, 2017 at 2:13 pm
Agreed Rud. I actually had a rather long follow up comment on the matter that got corrupted when I tried to post it and I just don’t feel like typing the whole thing in again. Plus Willis posted something on the same issue. In brief, a number of years ago, Keith Briffa published a tree ring chronology that restored the MWP. A NASA modeler named Perlw1tz insisted that only climate scientists could understand it. I asked what about it someone with nothing more than first year stats could not understand, and he refused to answer the question. My point being to Robin, that the notion that one has to be a climate scientist to understand and debate it is so ridiculous that when pressed on the issue, even alarmist climate scientists themselves can’t justify that argument.
I also pointed out to him that the IPCC, that august body of the United Nations which assembles all the known and best climate science in the world in the AR reports, seems to think we have a lot more to worry about in the coming years than climate change. One need not be a scientist to understand this chart, and I challenge Robin to say otherwise (or refute the United Nations IPCC, pick one Robin):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/01/we-have-bigger-problems-than-climate-change-so-sayeth-ipcc-ar5/
robinwhitlock1966 April 30, 2017 at 5:12 am
Robin, thanks for the comment. However, it shows that you truly do not understand science. Science is not pronouncements by “experts”. It is meaningless to determine who has “real climate science qualifications”. That is just a way that people use to avoid examining the science itself.
Science is a PROCESS by which we can determine which statements about the real world are valid and supported by the evidence and which are not. What you seem to be oblivious to is that this process does NOT include examining the credentials of the person making the scientific statement.
As an example, we didn’t decide whether E=MC2 is valid and supported by the evidence by looking at Einstein’s CV … but despite that, you wish us to decide whether some scientific statement about the climate is valid by looking at say Michael Mann’s CV. Nothing could be further from science.
(And as an aside, no, I’m not comparing myself to Einstein. I’m merely using him to make a point.)
Here’s a lovely quote I found the other day that may help you make the distinction:
Note that there is not one word in there about the people who are making the scientific statements.
Why?
Because their race, education, sex, nationality, height, personal habits, and credentials are IMMATERIAL to a scientific debate. Meaningless. Without value. Worthless. All that is important is whether their scientific claims are valid and supported by the evidence.
As a result, your insistence that people’s credentials are a valid subject in a scientific debate merely marks you as someone with no clue about the scientific process …
w.
Well played. It is obvious to most here that you have won by substance no-show default, from Fiji, while surfing Frigates head high left hand curl.
I am reminded of Mann’s recent congressional testimony where he denied on the record ever calling anyone a climate denier, to which Judith Curry replied, you called me that in your writtten testimony for this hearing. TKO.
Yes, an almost perfect piece of testimony by the courageous Judith Curry! WE’s list of characteristics immaterial to a scientific debate left out type of school attended. Whitlock seems wierdly obsessed by James Delingpole’s schooldays and hints at abuse suffered there that Whitlock’s psychological witching skills enable him to sense.
robinwhitlock1966 said:
Near as I can tell, so far you’re not “playing this” at all.
Still waiting …
w.
It’s nice that a warmist is “willing” to debate, but you really need some warmist “heavyweights” willing to do this. But they are like Democrats these days. Simple obfuscation to any “way forward” – status “gravy-train” quo. I figure the only way we inch forward is if Trump pulls out of the Paris accord. That might stir a few hornets more. But it sounds like his daughter is “hedging.”
Dunno. His daughter has said nothing, Only political pundits saying what his daughter might have said. Now, Tillerson’s position we know cause he has repeated it publicly. What Trump will do, dunno. But his public campaign promise was clear, and there are no complicating nuances like China/Korea, which he seems to be playing rather well per his ‘The Art of the Deal’.
“Brits said that the only reason that criminal charges weren’t laid because of their lies was that the statute of limitations had expired.”
We don’t strictly speaking have a statute of limitations in criminal matters, the Limitations Acts generally apply to civil cases…. The law at point here is the Magistrates Act that sets time limits on offences that may only be tried in the magistrates court. It’s there for a good reason, to prevent minor offences being indefinitely and abusively held, Damocles like, over defendants heads. In your case it is reasonably possible to interpret that act as applying to the 6 months from the moment when the information commissioner became aware that an offence had been committed…. In short they weren’t prevented from acting, they chose not to and used this as an excuse.
Mike Ozanne:
The matter was a blatant ‘cover up’ excused by the false claim of a ‘statute of limitations’. .
Christopher Booker provided this report that says,
“Gordon Smith, the deputy commissioner, confirms that the university’s refusal to answer legitimate inquiries made in 2007 and 2008 was an offence under S.77 of the Information Act. But he goes on to claim that the Commission is powerless to bring charges, thanks to a loophole in the law – “because the legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place”.”
Bookers account was published in ‘The Telegraph’ on 30 Jan 2010 under the heading
It is more informative than your account and in full it says
Richard
Robin Whitlock in action
Willis is the rake.
Written yesterday and not posted until now, sorry.
There are three stages to the real ‘the Nihilists’.
1) The refusal to address a) the lack of evidence for the guesswork b) the malfeasances of the practitioners of the faith and c) the twisting of the method.
2) Then they resort to ramped up scumbaggery – insults, appeals to authority and ignorance, strawmen, ad homs, ad nauseam.
3) Then they block you.
This guy is a waste of space. A mouth breather. An oxygen thief. He is a product(sic) of the creative writing department of a credential mill of the lowest order. He ‘cites’ Cox and the SS ffs.
My boringly constant and continuously validated prediction fwiw is, as always: He will not engage with the science, he will continue quoting the scriptures and claims of his false gods and he will run off to proclaim ‘the win’ when it suits him or when he runs out of support from his more entrenched betters/handlers.
He will not learn. His type cannot, even in extreme circumstance. He will preen and attempt to stick some jollies to his resume and hope some funding/kudos will rub off on him.
He is a prime example of the difference between clever and intelligent.
Just sayin’
I am (have been since before the turn of the century in the case of climate science) willing to change my mind. Who knows, maybe he is ‘The One’? Maybe, in his exhaustive investigations, he will discover that shred, that iota, that previously elusive morsel of repeatable, falsifiable evidence that ‘we did it guv’.
Willis
Why are you wasting your time here ?.
As you are making extraordinary claims then the burden of proof is with you , present your evidence for peer review like real scientists do and put us out of our collective misery please.
Most peer-reviewed scientific papers published in reputable journals have found the central value and range of ECS to be lower than the WAG of 3.0 +/- 1.5 degree C quoted in every IPCC report, without any sound basis.
Without net positive feedbacks assumed but not in evidence, there is no risk of catastrophic global warming from human activities. Since we do things which both cool and warm locally and maybe even globally, we can’t even be sure of the net sign of any human effect.
The 1.2 degrees C per doubling of CO2 derived in the lab doesn’t occur in the real, complex climate system. It wouldn’t, unless net feedbacks precisely balance each other out. If they are net negative, as is usual on a self-regulating planet such as ours, then ECS will be less than 1.2 degrees C per doubling. In the unlikely event that net feedbacks are positive, then something between 1.2 and 2.0 might be possible. But 3.0, let alone 4.5 degrees C, not so much.
CACA is much ado about nothing, unfortunately having cost us all dearly, especially those who have lots loved ones due to the shameless, antihuman sc@m and its unspeakably evil charlatan promoters.
fredcehak:
Please state what “extraordinary claims” you assert Willis is making because I know of none. And Willis HAS published in the peer reviewed literature.
Your post is innuendo and smear. Crawl back under your bridge.
Richard
Says Whitlock:
This blog has long been dominated by scientists and engineers, which is why I come here, though I am not one. Even when it’s over my head, there’s nothing like listening to experts and craftsmen discussing their trades and their interests. That these involve climatology, amongst many other topics, makes it even more interesting to me. And believe me, the disciplines of physics, mathematics, astronomy, thermodynamics, chemistry, geology, electrical engineering, etc., etc. all bear on the mysteries of the Earth and its climate.
I don’t think you’ll find another blog with such a diverse collection of very smart people who are devoted to the scientific method and its defense against ideologues with political agendas. I hope you’ll start reading the posts and comment threads here regularly. If you do, you just might find that the politically-correct cocoon you have woven about yourself is one you can break free of. Butterflies aren’t confined to one narrow tree trunk; they have the whole world to explore.
/Mr Lynn
Compared with his blog, which is nothing but Robin talking to himself.
Not a scientist, engineer or even knowledgeable laymen to be found.
“I’ve never claimed that it would be 0.8°C. I’m not sure what I’m missing here ”
That’s the sensitivity for 0 feedback and comes from calculations in the early 70s (eg. Rasool Schneider 1971). I’m guessing you’re being confused with people, like my self, who point that out to counter the argument that sceptics are in the pay of Big Oil.
So far, there are four comments on Whitlock’s blog post. Three of them his…
And, at the time of this comment, 554 other comments here. Nearly 140:1. The thing is, upthread, Whitlock said he preferred to build his argument at his own blog as he did not want to debate among non-scientists. Well, it strikes me, his blog post has been commented on 100% by non-scientists – so he’s in good company (I wonder if he comments in the third person). I think the proportion of comments on this thread is nearer 50/50 for science-led comments is nearer the mark. Personally, I like to think of Willis as a scientist who knows a bit about boat handling and carpentry.
Mr Whitlock figured a carpenter/fisherman/accountant, how hard could it be to slap this guy down?
And then there is such confounding stuff about greening of the planet, increasing forest productivity, doubling of crop harvests, no trends in storms, droughts, floods. Shrinking of Mars ice cap in concert with that of the earth. We get sparingly little on these topics these days that support considerable benefits and no harm by CO2 except in models.
For a good laugh, have a look at Mr. Whitlock’s current twitter feed, and scroll down a bit. In addition to endless ad hominem attacks on me, he’s retweeting every lie that Slandering Sou over at HotWhopper has ever published about me. He’s gone rabid attacking me for every crime real and imagined, and Sou says among much other nonsense that I’m a “racist Trump fan” …
But of course, not one word about the science. For them, it’s all about attacking me personally. They truly seem to think this means something about my scientific claims.
This joker is just as sick as Sou …
w.
Mr. Eschenbach,
Sentient persons easily recognize four flushers. Both Mr. Whitlock and the joke known as “Sou” perfectly define the notion of “four flusher.”
Thank you for calling the bluff that is Mr. Whitlock and thank you for all that you do to ensure that scientific method and common sense come to the fore.
The first of the comments made by a commentator on this post, though as a comment on my own blog, I have now answered in detail here: http://energyandenvironmentblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/historical-temperature-records.html Only, what, 500+ comments to go I guess…
Robin writes
So they used model output to justify model output in that study. Seems legit. I’d recommend looking closely at the models because they’re the achilles heel of the AGW theory.
You haven’t got 500 comments on your blog, Robin. There is only one comment on there that is not from you. Why don’t you copy ‘n’ paste your response to it here (you do know how to c ‘n’ paste, don’t you?).
[2,042,138 replies and comments and corrections here at WUWT. .mod]
Typical! One of Eschenbach’s clowns accuses me of having no understanding of thermodynamics. I say this: http://energyandenvironmentblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/more-comments-on-eschenbachs-blog.html
Robin, may I just remind you of blog etiquette here (as pointed out at the top of this thread):
PS: Do you or don’t you understand the laws of thermodynamics?
‘Really Sceptical’ responds to a denier with a few succinct words: “This is typical of all the claimed dangers of CO2….” etc etc
“Three years in a row record temps” he says (Really Sceptical). True, but of course temperatures have been rising since the industrial revolution in reaction to humans putting loads of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon, up there. These few words were enough to make Eschenbach respond:
“Oh, please. We know that temperatures have been generally rising for three centuries. So … where will we find the highest temperatures? Oh, the most recent years? Gosh, that’s shocking news … not.
If you think that is significant, think about it a bit more deeply.”
This response by Eschenbach is of course nonsense. He’s trying to suggest that the temperature rise is entirely natural, but of course it isn’t. Yes, climate scientists have to distinguish between what is natural climate variation and what is man-made climate change, but the evidence for human-caused climate change is incontrovertible (http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_ghgandtemp/).
Next we have someone by the name of Tony Mcleod, who posted this interesting graph from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (graph):
Cementafriend wrote this:
“Willis, you should not bother to reply to people who have no qualifications and no understanding of heat and mass transfer, or thermodynamics”
I admit I am not a scientist, but I do listen to them actually. As a result, I copied this into a word document from Skeptical Science, in response to the claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contradicts global warming:
“The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and voila, you have global warming.
The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:
“Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”
So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won’t get hotter, and the cold thing won’t get colder. That’s so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn’t boil!
The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.”
(from: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm)
Michael Hammer also has this to say on Jo Nova’s blog (http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/):
“The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to net flows of heat, not to each individual photon, and it does not prevent some heat flowing from a cooler body to a warm one.
Imagine three blocks of metal side by side. They are 11°C, 10°C, and 9°C. Think about what happens to the photons coming off the atoms in the middle of the medium temperature block between the other two. If heat never flows from cooler blocks to warmer blocks, all those photons have to go “right“, and not ever go “left”, because they “know” that way is towards a cooler block? (How would they?!)
The photons go both ways (actually every way, in 3D). There are more coming from the 11°C block to the 10°C block, sure, but the the 10°C block is sending ‘em back to the 11°C block too. So heat is flowing from cold to hot. It happens all the time. Net heat is flowing always hot to cold. But some heat is going the other way, every day, everywhere, bar possibly a black hole.”
Jo Nova herself has this to add:
“People are being caught by semantics. Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don’t “warm” the planet (as in, they don’t supply additional heat energy), but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It’s a bit like saying a blanket doesn’t warm you in bed. Sure, it’s got no internal heat source, and it won’t add any heat energy that you didn’t already have, but you sure feel cold without one. – Jo”
Michael goes on:
“I have lost count of the number of people claiming that global warming is impossible because the atmosphere is colder than the surface and thus cannot return heat to the surface since that would contravene the second law of thermodynamics. This is wrong and is based on an incorrect interpretation of the second law. The second law does not say a cold object cannot pass heat to a warmer object, it states that NET heat flow is always from warmer to colder.”
And:
“Imagine you are standing outside on a cold winters night. It’s really cold and you are soon chilled to the bone so you step inside.
Inside it’s a pleasant 20°C and almost immediately you feel warmer. But you are at 37°C and the room is 17°C cooler at 20°C how can it warm you, the second law of thermodynamics forbids it! No it doesn’t. When you were outside, your body was radiating energy to space but because the environment was so cold there was very little radiating back to you so the net loss was substantial.
When you step inside your body is still radiating exactly the same amount of energy (remember the amount radiated depends only on the temperature and emissivity) however now the warmer walls of the room radiate more energy back to you than did the cold outside. Since the walls are colder than you are you still radiate more energy than you receive (heat flow is still from you to the room) but the difference between what you radiate and what you receive is less. You lose less net energy when inside than when outside so you feel warmer inside the room and it is easy to feel the room is warming you. In fact it is more accurate to say the room cools you less than did the outside.
Exactly the same situation exists with respect to Earth’s surface. Without the green house gases in the atmosphere the surface would be radiating directly to outer space which is extremely cold (-269°C). The green house gases prevent some of that radiation to space and thus keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be. They do not do this by reducing the amount of energy the surface emits – doing that would entail changing the surface emissivity. Instead they radiate energy back onto the surface so that the net energy loss is reduced.”
I am not a scientist and yet even I can get this. So don’t accuse me of having no understanding of thermodynamics!!!
Actually, RW, what you should read is Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” (1951) to get a better understanding of your own attitudes, and the movement you are defending.
Robin, That blogpost you quoted from Jo Nova is over six years old. You have cut ‘n’ pasted it whole – as if you were fed it. I do not believe you, who didn’t know who Willis Eschebach was, knew who Jo Nova was. You have been fed the link and the words. My guess is that you do not even understand what it is you have
postedcut ‘n’ pasted. However, that you have discovered Jo Nova, I do hope you took the opportunity to read her ‘Skeptics Handbook’.Unfortunately people like Mr. Whitlock poison the debate with the name calling and my expert is better than your expert rather than debating the facts. When this happens everyone else is drawn into the downward spiral. Typical of so many online debates that I participate in.
“My expert is better than your expert” – yes exactly. Because if you can’t prove your facts, which climate scientists are doing all the time, then its just fake news. This entire debate revolves around supporting evidence, of which there is loads to support man-made climate change, and who has the authority to convincingly present that evidence, in other words, yes, it IS about fields and specialisms, and so my climate scientist beats your non-climate scientist or even ‘amateur scientist with no science qualifications’…like Willis for example. If you don’t like that, tough.
robinwhitlock1966:
You wrote:
I went to that link and it provides no indication of any kind that you have any knowledge of thermodynamics, but it includes this
Firstly, you ‘put words’ in the mouth’ of Eschenbach who merely pointed out fact but you to assert he ascribed attribution of cause which he did not. However, even the UN Intergovernmental on Climate Change (IPCC) says there was no significant human contribution to global temperature rise prior to ~1940.
Secondly, the link you provide from that quotation does NOT provide evidence that “temperatures have been rising since the industrial revolution in reaction to humans putting loads of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon, up there”.
Indeed, thirdly and very importantly, in reality there is no empirical evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW); n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada. In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found some but that was almost immediately revealed to be an artifact of his improper data selection. Since then research to find some – any – evidence for the existence of AGW has been conducted worldwide at an annual cost of more than $2.5 billion p.a..
That is ‘big business’ and it is pure pseudoscience which has been a total failure: nothing to substantiate AGW has been found.
And the politicians who provide the research funds agree there has been NO scientific advance in the field.
Theoretical climate sensitivity was estimated to be between ~2°C to ~4.5°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent at the start, and the IPCC now says it is estimated to 2.1°C to 4.4°C (with a mean value of 3.2°C).
Richard
Footnote
Science is a method which seeks the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information which refutes existing understanding(s) then amending or rejecting existing understanding(s) in light of found information.
Pseudocience is a method that decides existing understanding(s) to be ‘truth’ then seeks information to substantiate the understanding(s).
More bullshit
robinwhitlock1966:
I agree that I did quote your BS but you seem to have failed to read my refutation of it. Please do read my refutation and attempt to answer the facts it presents.
Richard
Wow, you really are full of it.
DaveS:
Oh goody! Whitlock has obtained a ‘mini -me’. That should add to the fun.
But, of course, it would have been helpful if he had obtained the help of somebody who knew something – anything – about climate change. Even Mosher and Stokes have run away for fear of being associated with the evidence-free, ill-informed and illogical blathering from Whitlock.
Richard
Next up on Eschenbach’s blog is this comment by A C Osborn:
“Don’t – massive tampering of the data by NASA & NAOO – give you slight pause?”
I am unsure of whether Osborn is supporting or criticising this ‘tampering of data’ claim here, but it gives me an opportunity to squash the claim (again) anyway.
NASA – the organisation that sent man to the moon…really? Brian Cox had said something to say about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8
So I covered this just now, but let’s go over it again:
The series of blog posts, written by climate change denier Paul Homewood (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/) were highly publicised in the Daily Telegraph by Christopher Booker – who has regularly been criticised (for example by George Monbiot – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/oct/13/christopher-booker) – for his woeful knowledge and regular mistakes. Both Homewood and Booker focused on the adjustments made to temperature readings at particular monitoring stations around the world, claiming that these adjustments throw the entire science of global warming into question. However, this isn’t the case at all, because these adjustments, as I recently mentioned and explained, are a normal and important part of climate science.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. agency responsible for monitoring national and global temperature trends, has debunked these accusations of data manipulation on several occasions on its website. So, explaining again, over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction, for example a building might be constructed nearby that affects the temperature readings collected by the measuring station, or the technology might be updated or changed etc. However, there is detailed station history available that helps to identify and correct the discrepancies. Some of the corrections required are relatively simple.
NOAA maintains about 1,500 monitoring stations, and gathers data from more than a thousand other stations in countries around the world. This data is shared freely by many national and international organisations. There are actually fewer monitoring stations today than there used to be; modern stations have better technology and are accessible in real time, unlike some older outposts no longer in use. The raw, unadjusted data from these stations is available from many sources, including the international collaboration known as the Global Historical Climatology Network and others.
As the years go by, all those stations undergo various types of changes: This can include shifts in how monitoring is done, improvements in technology, or even just the addition or subtraction of nearby buildings.
For example, a new building constructed next to a monitoring station could cast a shadow over a station, or change wind patterns, in such ways that could affect the readings. Also, the timing of temperature measurements has varied over time. And in the 1980s, most U.S. stations switched from liquid-in-glass to electronic resistance thermometers, which could both cool maximum temperature readings and warm minimum readings.
Monitoring organizations like NOAA use data from other stations nearby to try and adjust for these situations and the impacts they have on the accuracy of the data. This data from other stations is used to either raise or lower the temperature readings for a given station, a process known as homogenisation. The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend.
These homogenisation methods have been validated and peer-reviewed. For example, a 2012 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research confirmed the effectiveness of the homogenisation processes for NOAA’s network of stations, and even noted that “it is likely that maximum temperature trends have been underestimated.” In other words, there may have actually been more warming than NOAA has reported.
Another paper, from 2010 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013094/abstract), looked into the siting of U.S. monitoring stations in particular, and again found no problem with the homogenisation methods. “The adjusted [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements. … In summary, we find no evidence that the [conterminous United States] average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.”
Berkeley Earth, a climate science nonprofit founded in early 2010 by scientists expressing skepticism at the time about global warming, has also found no undue manipulation of temperature data in its own analyses. Its page specifically on the Paraguayan Puerto Casado station that Homewood mentioned shows the adjusted readings do in fact show a rise in temperature over time.
An October 2011 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016187/full) provides an overview of the entire Global Historical Climatology Network’s temperature data set, including detailed information about adjustments. In total, at least one “bias correction” was applied to 3,297 of the 7,279 stations in use at some point since 1801, though most of these occurred from the 1950s through the 1980s. There are approximately equal numbers of adjustments in the positive and negative directions.
So the claim of ‘data tampering’ is just ridiculous actually.
RW, your apparent standard is that as Thomas Karl and the crew at NOAA have not confessed, they are utterly innocent of any wrongdoing.
robinwhitlock1966:
You say
Rubbish!
If I had a bias it would be supportive of NOAA because I accepted the nomination that NOAA made for me to be an Expert Peer Reviewer for the IPCC.
The issue is NOT the alteration of recent data to overcome recent changes such as the construction of buildings. The issue is the frequent alteration of data with the effect of causing e.g. this.
And if you were to read this then you would now how bad the problem is.
Richard
Thanks, Richard, for those links and your contribution to exposing this sh@m, which has cost humanity so dearly.
In comments to another post, I pointed the same facts out to Simon and Nick, but was dismissed as a Tin Foil Hat-wearing conspiracy theorist. As I said there, the fact of a conspiracy is not in doubt. One might however speculate as to motive.
richardscourtney
I accepted the nomination that NOAA made for me to be an Expert Peer Reviewer for the IPCC.
Repeated for effect. Pay attention Robin.
Seeing as you have named me directly do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions?
The first is have you actually looked at any Temperature Raw, Intermediary and Final data yourself?
The second is I assume that you know how anomalies work?
If you do, can you explain it to me please?
Whitlock:
“. . .the evidence for human-caused climate change is incontrovertible.”
OK, we’re waiting. What exactly is that evidence?
/Mr Lynn
L. E. Joiner:
You write
Despite all efforts, no such evidence has been found. Anybody who did find such evidence would certainly be awarded two Nobel Prizes (i.e. Peace and Physics) and possibly a third (i.e. Chemistry).
So, the entire world eagerly awaits Whitlock’s answer to your question .
Richard
Oh bullshit. Loads of it, you’re just denying it. That kind of attitude is going to lead me towards ad hom attacks, or more likely just ignoring your crap.
[We recommend you answer the facts of the argument, not call the argument and those who present that argument excrement. .mod]
robinwhitlock1966:
No there is no evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW); none, not any of any kind.
You do not present any such evidence because you are not able to provide some of something that does not exist. And the complete lack of any empirical evidence for AGW is why those who like you promote AGW use three kinds of pseudo-science.
Advocates of AGW use ‘argument from ignorance’.
This isn’t new. In the Middle Ages experts said, “We don’t know what causes crops to fail: it must be witches: we must eliminate them.” Now, experts say, “We don’t know what causes global climate change: it must be emissions from human activity: we must eliminate them.” Of course, they phrase it differently saying they can’t match historical climate change with known climate mechanisms unless an anthropogenic effect is included. But evidence for this “anthropogenic effect” is no more than the evidence for the effect of witches.
Advocates of AGW rely on not-validated computer models..
No model’s predictions should be trusted unless the model has demonstrated forecasting skill. But existing climate models have not existed for 20, 50 or 100 years, so they cannot have demonstrated forecasting skill.
Simply, the climate models’ predictions of the future have the same demonstrated reliability as the casting of chicken bones to predict the future.
Advocates of AGW misuse the Precautionary Principle .
They say we should stop greenhouse gas emissions in case the AGW hypothesis is right. But that turns the Precautionary Principle on its head.
Stopping the emissions would reduce fossil fuel usage with resulting economic damage. This would be worse than the ‘oil crisis’ of the 1970s because the reduction would be greater, would be permanent, and energy use has increased since then. The economic disruption would be world-wide. Major effects would be in the developed world because it has the largest economies. Worst effects would be on the world’s poorest peoples: people near starvation are starved by it.
The Precautionary Principle says we should not accept the risks of certain economic disruption in attempt to control the world’s climate on the basis of assumptions that have no supporting evidence and merely because they’ve been described using computer games.
Richard
Actual science as opposed to playstation science has found that as methane is released, in the arctic, it is consumed by bacteria and moss before it can enter the atmosphere.
Link?
There have been several:
US Geologic Survey http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000534/full
Princeton University (no link to the paper, but the abstract is in this article, and if the full paper is important to you, I’m sure you can find it) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/19/the-arctic-methane-emergency-appears-canceled-due-to-methane-eating-bacteria/
Or the American Geophysical Union http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069292/pdf
I’m sure you’ve heard of these organizations? Or are they suddeny not scientists? There’s more, if you look for the science instead of the hype….
http://energyandenvironmentblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/ah-1930s-temperature-record.html
Next up on Eschenbach’s blog, a comment by Steve Case about the 1930’s temperature record:
“Wow, the cooling of the 1930’s temperature record has hit new lows”
The New Scientist has this (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/) to say:
“After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.
The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back into space.
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5 degrees C while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century.
The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases.”
I am going to skip forward now, but only a little bit, to a quite ridiculous statement by someone called Chimp, who says:
“There has been no statistically significant warming in the 21st century. The so-called “surface” data are totally bogus, anti-scientific fantasy perpetrated by lying, tough-feeding bureaucrats in order to try to make their GIGO models look less epically failed and to keep the CACA gravy train rolling.”
Of course, its utter bull. Chimp provides no evidence to support either claim. However, the Australian Government reported that 2013 was the hottest year ever on record: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/ :
“2013 was Australia’s warmest year since records began in 1910. Mean temperatures across Australia have generally been well above average since September 2012. Long periods of warmer-than-average days have been common, with a distinct lack of cold weather. Nights have also been warmer than average, but less so than days.
The Australian area-averaged mean temperature for 2013 was +1.20 °C above the 1961–1990 average. Maximum temperatures were +1.45 °C above average, and minimum temperatures +0.94 °C above average. Temperatures were above average across nearly all of Australia for maximum, mean and minimum temperatures, with large areas of inland and southern Australia experiencing the highest on record for each.
Australia has experienced just one cooler-than-average year (2011) in the last decade. The 10-year mean temperature for 2004–2013 was 0.50 °C above average, the equal-highest on record. Averages for each of the ten-year periods from 1995–2004 to 2004–2013 have been amongst the top ten records.
The Australian mean rainfall total for 2013 was 428 mm (37 mm below the long-term average of 465 mm). In comparison with rainfall in all years since 1900, 2013 sits close to the median or mid-point of historical observations.
Annual rainfall was below average across a large region of the inland east centred on western Queensland and extending into northern South Australia and the Northern Territory. Rainfall was above average over parts of the Pilbara and the south coast of Western Australia, as well as along the east coast and northern Tasmania.”
The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) confirmed that 2016 was the warmest year on record (https://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=19835#.WQdBddy1vIU)
So Chimp’s statement is just utter nonsense. However, he goes on to say:
“The peaks in 1997-98 and 2015-16 are from super El Ninos, totally natural events. The recent one was fractionally warmer, but there is no reason to suppose that humans are responsible for the insignificant difference.”
….except that data from NOAA shows that the 2014-2016 El Nino didn’t even begin until October 2014 and was pretty borderline until mid-2015. It did add to the warming from late 2015, but if the El Nino factor is removed, 2016 is still the warmest year on record. So Chimp’s statement on this is again a load of nonsense.
Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth says more on this here https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-newspaper-claim-about-global-temperature-is-deeply-misleading
“It is all but certain now that 2016 will shatter historical records to be the warmest year ever by a wide margin. It was helped along the way by a large El Niño event, which tends to be associated with warmer temperatures globally. But, even without El Niño, 2016 would likely still be the warmest year ever.”
He goes on to say that David Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday in November 2016 was “deeply misleading” based on cherry-picking an obscure temperature record, the creator of which warned that it should be “used with caution”. Hausfather says that the warming of 2014, 2015 and 2016 has been driven by human greenhouse gas emissions, not El Nino.
Robin: “Hausfather says that the warming of 2014, 2015 and 2016 has been driven by human greenhouse gas emissions, not El Nino.”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2014.5/to
So, if all the warming was due to GHGs then why did the atmospheric temperature revert back into the same range after the end of the El Nino?
“Hausfather says…”
Did you know that Hausfather has hung around this blog for years?
Andrew
robinwhitlock1966:
I am not interested in the self-serving assertions of Zeke Hausfather concerning newspaper articles about global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) time series..
I want an answer to this scandal.
Richard
Jeepers Richard, that is quite some scandal. Has there been any movement at all as a result of your very informative and troubling publication?
Dear me, still flogging that dead horse. Give it up. The scientists were cleared. You lost. Get over it.
Keitho:
Sorry, nothing.
Richard
robinwhitlock1966:
Nobody was “cleared”.
You are a loser who is losing.
Read the link I posted and try to learn from it because your pontificating about climate issues is combining with your very obvious total ignorance of the subject to make you look foolish.
Richard
That there has been no statistically significant warming this century is simply a fact. If you control for ENSO, the earth is in fact cooling.
Do a linear regression from now backwards and you’ll find no warming from late in the past century.
The years 2015 and 2016 were higher because of the super El Nino. Its effect will disappear, just as it did after the 1998 super El Nino. The only question is by how much and how rapidly the planet will get back to flatline.
That you don’t know this just shows how ill-informed you are about climatology.
OK, Robin, seems you were having problems with the laws on thermodynamics, and it now looks like you’re having trouble with statistics: What part of ‘not statistically significant’ do you have a problem with? Even if 2014 was the hottest (do you now by how much the warmists claim that margin was by any chance?), within statistical limits it makes little difference.
Let me help you here: In your teens your rate of growth would have been significant, but in your 40s (your 50-something, yes?) that slowed down and is now insignificant. However, I bet the height you achieved at your last birthday was the highest you have ever been – and the years before that were, in their turn. See how it works now? The point is, you are never going to hit the height that could have been extrapolated from your teen years’ growth rate.
Yes I’ve encountered that statistically significant argument before. Don’t worry, I’ll come to that eventually…
Still 499 to go….
BTW: You seemed not to have heard of Willis Eschenbach before this post. I wonder how many other sceptics you are ignorant of. Ever hear of Bob Carter? Chris Monckton? (No peeping!) etc… (not to mention some other luminaries on this very blog. Talk about a free education.).
Robin Whitlock:
– Once you’ve been fed the correct ‘line to take’ from either Desmog or SkS (I take it you’ve heard of John Cook?).