"No evidence" is a useful scientific finding

Guest essay by Michel de Rougemont

Heretic? You’re welcome!

Hysteric? Please cool down!

We hear that global warming is highly dependent on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this gas that is required to sustain life on Earth and that is also emitted when burning flammable stuff, such as wood, coal, mineral and organic oils, or methane.

If you are told “this depends on that”, you are invited to examine available data observed over time to draw a representation of this on the y-axis vs. that on the x-axis.

So, in all logic, you should be interested in a representation of the temperature evolution in dependence of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Yes, you should, but, looking hard into the latest IPCC Report (the fifth of Working Group I, to be precise), no diagram of that sort can be found among its 1535 pages.

So, asks the judge: what is the evidence that the victim was attacked by the suspect? And the expert is not able, or willing, to provide any evidence. Is he actually an expert, or an incompetent prosecutor?

Among the available observed climate data are the so-called temperature anomalies (Ta), summarized as global monthly means, and the atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) over the same time span. But time line diagrams show us only that, since the beginning of the industrial era, the global mean temperature went up by 0.8 to 1 °C, and [CO2] increased from 280 ppm to 405 ppm.

So, what? The suspect was there while the victim developed fever, is it enough evidence of culpability? As for any circumstantial fact, the answer must obviously be no. Presence is required, but is not sufficient to prove anything.

The next question is then: how fast was warming going on when [CO2] was low, and when it is now high? If a correlation can be shown, then a stronger case against the alleged culprit could be opened.

Using a simple spreadsheet to calculate these changes, and smoothing them over a 7-year filter[1] so that a cloud of data points can be seen as a trend line, the following diagram is obtained:

Zero on the y-axis means that neither warming nor cooling takes place.

At high [CO2] some cooling was observed, at lower [CO2] high warming rates were observed.

Honestly, no statistically valid correlation tying warming rate to [CO2] can be derived from it.

Sorry, no statistical significance, no hint of a proof!

Why do the IPCC experts avoid looking at such simple relationship? I can only guess, and my guess is that they are either blinded by their greenhouse assumption, thus faithfully ignoring any other indices, or they deliberately hide what would prevent them to obtain a capital punishment sentence. In any case they behave away from any scientific honesty.

Mainstream yes, but a highly polluted stream.

This is all the available observational data; any other relationships are conjectures, however plausible they might be, no evidence. Therefore, all possible heretical interpretations must be made, for example that one: from all possible known and unknown causes of the observed global warming, the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions may have, or not, a contributing role. No scepticism, no advocacy, no unsustainable allegation, plain factual view.

I have only one questions to ask to all mainstream climate-experts, and their gullible followers in the public, the media, and in the political world:

What observational evidence can you provide to sustain the allegation that temperature is “very likely” and mostly driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?


Notes:

Originally published here: http://blog.mr-int.ch/?p=4150&lang=en

Contrary to almost all mainstream climate scientists whose sustained professional life depends on an on-going climate alarmism, including peer reviewers, I have no conflict of interest in relation with this subject.

My sources are all publicly available data series.

I can provide my spreadsheets to anyone who asks politely via the contact page of this blog.


[1] Why seven years?

Because it’s uneven, large enough but not too long, and it is already documented in a famous book.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
429 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 28, 2017 12:00 pm

Posted in 2009:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/
Ray (14:14:35) :
Ok… we can say that for June the temperature has been average !!!
What is the level of CO2 for June? Has it been rising still? Obviously, the rise of CO2 is related to climate change but is certainly not the driver.
_____________________________
Correct Ray.
There has been no global warming since the satellites were launched in 1979.
And there was slight global cooling from 1940 to 1979.
So there has been no global warming since 1940, despite an increase of ~800% in humanmade CO2 emissions. See the first graph at:
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
In it we are seeing ~one full PDO Cycle. The alarmists like to portray only the warming half of the last PDO cycle, and then project it infinitely into the future. This is, of course, nonsense.
One could argue that the Surface Temperature data should be adjusted for Urban Heat Island effect, This would suggest approx. 0.3C GLOBAL COOLING since 1940.
Ironically, it would be easier to suggest that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global cooling, not global warming, but don’t tell the alarmists that – it could be their next “very scary” fundraising campaign.
Atmospheric CO2 continues to climb from 315ppm in 1958 to more than ~380 ppm today. I haven’t examined it lately because it doesn’t matter. Why? Because CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales. So the warmists are claiming that the future causes the past. I don’t like their logic. See
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

george e. smith
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
June 28, 2017 1:22 pm

The Temperature is never average.
G

Reply to  george e. smith
June 28, 2017 2:00 pm

+100

Reply to  george e. smith
June 28, 2017 3:02 pm

soph-ist-ry

DWR54
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
June 28, 2017 2:14 pm

Allan M.R. MacRae

There has been no global warming since the satellites were launched in 1979.

Except there has been. In every single satellite data set, whether lower troposphere, mid troposphere or total troposphere.

tetris
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 2:52 pm

Do you have any credible, verifiable, empirical evidence to support the contention that whatever warming you state has occurred, is caused primarily by anthropogenic CO2? If you do, I’m sure I’m not the only one who would like to have good look.
Until then, correlation is not causation. And the data tells us forget about causation, there is not even correlation: the 20 years of the “pause” coincide with mankind releasing into the atmosphere some 35% of all anthropogenic CO2 produced since 1750.

Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 3:00 pm

DWR – posted in 2009 and true then.
…and not much warming since then.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 3:07 pm

Nothing statistically significant.

AndyG55
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 3:21 pm

And the warming has come from Ocean events, El Ninos, which are absolutely nothing to do with CO2
If you look at periods and places unaffected by El Ninos.. THERE IS NO WARMING.

David A
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 5:45 pm

True, abot 33% of what the models predicted, and likely caused primarily by PDO AMO cycles.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
June 28, 2017 6:43 pm

We have heard that Fourier, Wycliffe, and Arrhenius established the so-called physics of CO2 warming. I have a hunch they may not have been measuring CO2 concentration in increments of 100 ppm, at ranges between 200 ppm and 600 ppm, experimental apparati being relatively crude relative to today,. Suppose, for example that Arrhenius used “Carbonic acid” concentrations of 1%-6%. Good scientific studies, but irrelevant to actual atmospheric concentrations two orders of magnitude less.
Suppose they were able to do studies with .01 to .06% Co2. Were their experimental apparati using dry gas, or gas that had a lot more H20, as is present in the earth’s atmosphere? These experiments’ methods and materials, and results need to be carefully checked.
Moreover, the actual atmosphere, affected by ocean currents, wind, evaporation, condensation, convection, cosmic rays, as opposed to closed-tube spectroscopic laboratory experiments, is vastly complicated.

Gabro
Reply to  lftpm
June 28, 2017 6:49 pm

Actually, 19th century apparatus could get quite precise and accurate results in measuring local CO2 concentrations, but that’s not the main problem with Arrhenius’ “results”.
Of course, there were no valid data on global average levels. European cities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries naturally enjoyed elevated CO2 concentrations.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  lftpm
June 29, 2017 5:53 am

Actually, 19th century apparatus could get quite precise and accurate results in measuring local CO2 concentrations,

A Scandinavian group accordingly set up a network of 15 measuring stations in their countries. Their only finding, however, was a high noise level. Their measurements apparently fluctuated from day to day as different air masses passed through, with differences between stations as high as a factor of two.
Charles David (Dave) Keeling held a different view. As he pursued local measurements of the gas in California, he saw that it might be possible to hunt down and remove the sources of noise. Taking advantage of that, however, would require many costly and exceedingly meticulous measurements, carried out someplace far from disturbances.
Keeling did much better than that with his new instruments. With painstaking series of measurements in the pristine air of Antarctica and high atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, he nailed down precisely a stable baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Reply to  lftpm
June 29, 2017 8:45 pm

We have heard that Fourier,…
decades before enough thermodynamics was known to actual come up with a valid reason for the GHE. It was almost 30 years before someone noticed that gasses absorbed and emitted at the same wavelength.

4Kx3
Reply to  lftpm
June 30, 2017 6:20 am

@lftpm While the spectroscopic properties of gasses were studied in the 19th century, full understanding of the relation between radiative properties and chemical state only came through quantum mechanics beginning with Planck, then Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and many others. “Photons” were named in 1926. http://www.nobeliefs.com/photon.htm Much of the radiative transfer theory that makes accurate calculation possible was worked out in the mid 20th century. All this this doesn’t even begin to deal with atmospheric dynamics, which is the work in progress.

talldave2
Reply to  lftpm
June 30, 2017 1:01 pm

Apparently we’ve been able to predict long-term global temperature trends (and their impact!) since around 1900 or so, even though predictions from as recently as 1988 are already laughably wrong.

Tom O
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
June 29, 2017 10:14 am

Allan…. wrote –
“Correct Ray.
There has been no global warming since the satellites were launched in 1979.”
I’ll be darned! So that is the secret! If we want to cool the planet, then all we have to do is launch a few more satellites! So much for “Tom foolery,”
One thing I have always wondered is why do they say wind power is CO2 free? When you consider the millions of birds, bats, and insects that are killed and must therefore be disposed in nature’s way of decomposition, HOW can you claim they don’t produce greenhouse gases? Okay, so maybe this, too, is “Tom foolery,” or is it?

Gabro
Reply to  Tom O
June 30, 2017 11:07 am

Wind power is highly CO2 intensive, since the turbines need massive concrete bases.

Gabro
Reply to  Tom O
June 30, 2017 11:11 am

And of course they need fossil fuel backup, or nuclear or hydrodams, both of which are also made of concrete.

Gabro
June 28, 2017 12:10 pm

Since CO2 took off after the end of WWII, its steady rise has been correlated with pronounced cooling for 32 years, slight warming for about 20 years and flat temperature for another approximately 20 years.
This fact alone falsifies the CACA hypothesis that CO2 is the control knob on global climate and temperature. Every other line of evidence also finds the same result.

Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 12:31 pm

About 35% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 took place this century. Yet except for a now cooling 2015-16 El Nino blip, there has been no warming this century. This disproves the CO2 control knob hypothesis.

Gabro
Reply to  ristvan
June 28, 2017 12:40 pm

It would if “consensus climate science” were actually science rather than an ideological cult and corrupt, organized criminal conspiracy.

Reply to  ristvan
June 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Gabro and ristvan – I agree.

talldave2
Reply to  ristvan
June 30, 2017 1:05 pm

Ristvan — well, not really, it just means if the CO2 knob exists it must be really, really tiny, much smaller than generally believed.
So tiny, in fact, that only someone with equally diminutive digits could grasp it.
And that’s why Trump was the only one who could get us out of the Paris Agreement.

Dave Fair
Reply to  talldave2
June 30, 2017 2:09 pm

Insulting our President doesn’t cut it, talldave2.

DWR54
Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 2:19 pm

Gabro

Since CO2 took off after the end of WWII, its steady rise has been correlated with pronounced cooling for 32 years, slight warming for about 20 years and flat temperature for another approximately 20 years.

And if you put the entire period together, instead of breaking it up into individual pieces of differing durations, you get this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1946/mean:12/normalise/plot/gistemp/from:1946/mean:12/normalise

Latitude
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 3:10 pm

shows the rate of CO2 increase faster than temp increase

Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 3:31 pm

Now, extend that back in time about 18,000 years.

Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 3:33 pm

So, 1degC in 70 years. Less than 1.5degC/century. Since the last glaciation the temperature first went up some 8degC melting virtually all of the glaciation except for Antarctica and raising sea levels ~125 ft. in 15,000 years. Since then, despite a sudden drop during the Younger Dryas cooling, the temperature has been within an approximate range of 1degC.
Any slightly higher recent readings appear to be solely due to the inability of the graphologists to blend 100 years of sparse temperature records on to proxies for earlier temperatures. Take heart, the temperature warmed up at least 10degC in the past couple months.

ScottR
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 3:46 pm

GISTEMP is untrustworthy. Run by an unsavory bunch.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 4:34 pm

@DWR54
Yes, using a 12 month running mean makes things look scary, but if you remove that filter you’ll see this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1946/mean:1/normalise/plot/gistemp/from:1946/mean:1/normalise
Now it’s more evident that while CO2 increases monotonically despite the annual cycle, temperatures go up, down, or stays the same. On a fine scale, there is no correlation. Where there is no correlation, you can have no causation.

ZThomm
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 4:42 pm

In statistics class, we would call the posited CO2 effect on global warming to be a spurious correlation. I.e., both warming and CO2 increase are caused by outside variables not in the equation.

tty
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 4:57 pm

“And if you put the entire period together, instead of breaking it up into individual pieces of differing durations, you get this”
Actually this, if you use real data rather than forcing them up to follow each other:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1946/scale:1/plot/gistemp/from:1946/scale:1/offset:350

Matt G
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 4:58 pm

This plot easily shows why GISTEMP is a load of made up nonsense and has been increasingly cooled in the past and fake warmed over recent decades.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/plot/gistemp
Oceans dictate the general change in the planets temperatures and GISTEMP after roughly matching the earlier periods has a huge divergence over recent decades because it is fudged.
The GISTEMP partly data and made up set that doesn’t match other better controlled data sets because it is a timeline of different fruits that never match for any longer than a short period. It is impossible to compare different periods with it because they never use the same method or technique and are always slightly changing data points all the time, to match the correlation with CO2 increases. Historic data should never be changed unless there is very good scientific reason for doing so and the GISTEMP fails this test.
Look below how closely RSS matches with ocean trends.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/plot/rss
and UAH
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/plot/uah6
The reason why GISTEMP is nonsense can be shown here and the excuse for covering more Arctic doesn’t apply here when the satellite covers it better.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/GlobalvDifference1997-98ElNino_zps8wmpmvfy.png

Chris Hanley
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 6:22 pm

Then again if you use a more reliable less corrupted temperature record you find for the entire 59 years of measured CO2, for only 27 years there is a positive correlation:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif

Gabro
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 6:27 pm

HadCRU is scarcely less corrupted than GISS and NOAA. But your point remains valid, although the interval of accidental positive correlation is actually shorter.

Gabro
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 7:01 pm

philohippous June 28, 2017 at 3:33 pm
More like over 400 feet, ie ~140 meters.

p@Dolan
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 8:13 pm

Rhetorical question: at what ppm CO2 does photosynthesis cease?
When you have that answer, ask me why I’m unconcerned–utterly—about the slight increases we’ve seen in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and why I’m anxious for it to double again over present concentration.

Gabro
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 8:17 pm

p@Dolan June 28, 2017 at 8:13 pm
It varies by species and other environmental parameters, but photosynthesis in C3 plants starts suffering under 200 ppm. It can continue at lower levels, perhaps even under 150 ppm in cases, but surviving isn’t the same as thriving. A plant might survive at 150 ppm but be unable to flower, make seed and reproduce, requiring all the sugar it made under such conditions of CO2 starvation simply to keep from dying.

Hivemind
Reply to  DWR54
June 28, 2017 8:51 pm

“Take heart, the temperature warmed up at least 10degC in the past couple months.”
No, it didn’t. In Australia, the temperature cooled by 15 degrees. We are in winter and Canberra will be -4 Centigrade tonight. I just wish global warming was a real thing.

billw1984
Reply to  DWR54
June 29, 2017 6:07 am

Don’t even have to go back 18,000 years. Go back to 1910-1940. Temperature changed (according to NOAA) about 0.5 or more degrees. CO2 did not change much during that time as I recall.

Ray in SC
Reply to  DWR54
June 29, 2017 8:39 am

“Take heart, the temperature warmed up at least 10degC in the past couple months (in the northern hemisphere).”
“No, it didn’t. In Australia, the temperature cooled by 15 degrees”
This points out the fallacy of a ‘global average temperature’. It also reminds me of a funny story. My former boss and I were standing outside on a particularly hot and humid day that is typical for coastal South Carolina in August. I made the offhand comment that it sure would be a great day to be in Australia. He looked at me with a puzzled expression and asked why. I replied that “it’s winter time there.” He laughed and said “I’m not falling for that, the next thing you’ll try to tell me is that the toilets flush in the opposite direction down there.”
That was the day that I realized that my boss, know to himself as the smartest man in any room, truly was a slobbering idiot.

AndyG55
Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 3:24 pm

Actually, there was no warming in the satellite data from 19080 -1997.
The slight trend line increase is a remnant of where the internal cycles start and finish.comment image

Dave Fair
Reply to  AndyG55
June 28, 2017 4:45 pm

What!?! You are telling me that there was no global atmospheric warming for almost 2 decades before the 1998 El Nino? According to RSS?
But … but …? The models said there was! Tell me it ain’t so, Dr. Mears!

Reply to  AndyG55
June 29, 2017 1:14 pm

Andy
Yes there was warming, however it was offset by similar periods of cooling, but on “average” there was a nuetral trend.
After the excellent pieces on averaging, I use the word in bracketed terms.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
June 30, 2017 2:35 am

@ ozonebust..
Pedantic, hey 😉

Reply to  AndyG55
July 1, 2017 11:07 am

To AndyG55 (June 28 at 3:24pm)
Shame on you for presenting a truncated temperature chart, Michael Mann-style.
That’s smarmy science, and smarmy science should be left to the global warmunists
I know you have to start in 1979, when satellites were launched,
but the end data should be the latest data available — 2017, not 1997 !
1979 to 2017 is already too short a period from which
to extrapolate a long-term trend — presenting an even shorter period
— such as 1979 to 1997 — is worse.
There are some who think El Nino temperature peaks, such as in 1998 and 2015/2016,
should be deleted from the data, since they are not caused by CO2
… but others who think they should be included.
When in doubt, include them.
When I look at all the satellite average temperature data from 1979 to 2017,
I see a significant step up to a higher range of temperatures
from the early 1990s to early 2000s.
Those ten years account for most of the total 1979 to 2017 warming.
Constantly rising CO2 would not be a good explanation for that temperature “step up”
(which could be reversed in the future — no one knows that now).
Perhaps there were changes to measuring instruments,
or too many “adjustments” and warming biased data infilling.
I’ve read that in Russia and China, people reading the thermometers in the 1980s
used to exaggerate how cold it was because doing that would increase the
allotment of coal and heating oil for their area.
Perhaps the best explanation is “No one knows”.
You will never find a skeptic more skeptical than me.
But there appears to have been mild warming in the past 137 years.
So what?
There could be mild cooling in the next 137 years!
Any attempt to refute past mild warming requires
suggesting that average temperature measurements
are so rough that it’s possible there was no warming since 1880
… or maybe there was + 2 degrees warming,
(I’m assuming a reasonable margin of error of +/- 1 degree C.
is applied to the usual claim of +1 degree C. of warming since 1880).
My climate blog for non-scientists:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Joel Snider
June 28, 2017 12:12 pm

Lack of evidence for Bigfoot hasn’t stopped Animal Planet from running at least three regular Bigfoot Hunter series.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 28, 2017 12:59 pm

And for the same reason.
Money.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 28, 2017 2:13 pm

Evidence of Bigfoot exceeds the evidence of CO2 causing climate change. 🙂

AndyG55
Reply to  rocketscientist
June 28, 2017 3:38 pm

A Mann in a costume 😉

Duster
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 28, 2017 4:36 pm

There’s better evidence for Big Foot when you come down to it.

Reply to  Joel Snider
June 28, 2017 6:57 pm

Humpback whales and Blue whales living in central and southern California tell us, the ocean is getting cooler. Well, they like it anyway,

Gabro
Reply to  lftpm
June 28, 2017 6:59 pm

Good point.
Blue whale birthing and breeding grounds used to be so restricted as to be secret. But the cooling seas have so expanded the range thereof that the areas can no longer be kept secret.

June 28, 2017 12:12 pm

“Why do the IPCC experts avoid looking at such simple relationship?”
If they did, they might have to consider other simple relationships, like the requirement for the macroscopic average behavior to conform to the laws of physics. Constraints like the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law are called LAWS for a reason.
Part of the global warming meme is that the climate is too complex for mere mortals to understand, therefore, you must listen to the ‘experts’. The simple fact is that no simple fact can explain the presumed relationship between CO2 and temperature. It then becomes a matter of job security for the so called ‘experts’ to make the climate seem as complicated as possible.
They don’t seem or want to understand that relative to the long term climate, most of the complexity is in the path from one equilibrium state to another and not in what’s driving what that next equilibrium state will be. Once this is understood, the excess complexity evaporates away.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 28, 2017 1:44 pm

co2isnotevil
An interesting summary, however
1. Earth is NEVER in equilibrium
2. Laws of physics should always be questioned, e.g. speed of light is still being questioned as the fastest, and, ceratinly other assumptions like the Brewer Dobson circulation is a barrier preventing atmospheric movement between the hemispheres. .
3. A skeptic should be positive and remain quietly skeptical about all scientific conclusions. e.g. SH Zonal winds are a very good example, what drives them. Answer = atmospheric transport from the NH due to NH pressure .
Regards

Joel Snider
June 28, 2017 12:21 pm

Why seven years?
‘7’s the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that’s the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin’ on a branch, eatin’ lots of sunflowers on my uncle’s ranch. You know that old children’s tale from the sea. It’s like you’re dreamin’ about Gorgonzola cheese when it’s clearly Brie time, baby.’

Yeah, I know – but it was there… I had to use it.

george e. smith
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 28, 2017 1:23 pm

Because the Bible said so.
g

commieBob
June 28, 2017 12:23 pm

If I were doing a lab experiment to show the validity of Ohm’s Law, I would measure DC current and DC voltage, draw a graph and conclude that there is a linear relationship.
If I were characterizing a system with long time constants, I would feed it a step and graph the results over time. I would not conclude that the lack of a straight line didn’t mean there was no causality.
This article would not, I hope, fool a second year engineering student.

Scott Scarborough
Reply to  commieBob
June 28, 2017 12:41 pm

A curved line would be fine too. How long of a time constant are you talking about? The CO2 concentrations in the article’s graph represent over 100 years. Is CO2 suppose to take a lot longer than that?

DonM
Reply to  Scott Scarborough
June 28, 2017 12:57 pm

CO2 is supposed to take the time span from now until the end of the modelers end of life, plus 5 years, to show itself as the primary driver.
Hence the concern for the grandchildrens’ welfare.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  commieBob
June 28, 2017 12:47 pm

commieBob,
You make a good point, up to a point.
When something is of interest, the usually approach is to look at the simple explanation first. If the issue seems more complicated than “simple”, then try something else.
You say: “If I were characterizing a system with long time constants, I would …
I assume that someone working on the IPCC Report is at least as smart as a second year engineering student, and maybe even as smart as you.
So, what did they do next?

commieBob
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
June 28, 2017 2:15 pm

I assume that someone working on the IPCC Report is at least as smart as a second year engineering student, and maybe even as smart as you.
So, what did they do next?

Dr. Michael E. Mann has more degrees than I do, from better schools, and he probably has a higher IQ. If I were to get into an argument with him about tree rings, I would lose. That’s OK, if I got into an argument about biology with Dr. Trofim Lysenko, I would also lose. Heck, a decent politician could probably leave me confused and dazed about electronics.
What did they do? Rather than engaging in curiosity based science, they started with a conclusion and proceeded to gather data that would support it.
How do I know Mann is wrong? It’s kinda obvious. Experts who express as much certainty as he does are unlikely to be right anyway. link

Duster
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
June 28, 2017 4:54 pm

Mann is thick enough to equate tree rings to temperature. That is known to be false to fact. Trees grow in response to the availability of liquid water and soil nutrients. The only time the temperature will seriously affect tree growth is where it directly affects the availability of water. In circumpolar lands, trees need a thaw before they can move nutrients up the trunk and into branches and leaves, where primary production will occur. In arid situations two elements are important. One is ground water availability. Too little and the tree dies. Also, too much heat can cause death through an inability by the tree to take up water from the ground at a rate adequate to prevent wilting.
So, theoretically temperature may have a visible effect on tree growth in the right environment, under the right circumstances. The trick would be validly associating temperature with tree growth. In temperate climates, where most of his data was acquired, temperature is irrelevant. So, the odds are you actually could argue successfully with Mann, though he would not admit it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Duster
June 28, 2017 5:05 pm

And, I am told, the tree ring data providers caution they should not be used for temperature reconstructions. Especially SW U.S. bristlecone pines. Additionally, one should not over weight one tree.

afonzarelli
Reply to  commieBob
June 28, 2017 12:50 pm

commie, if i can wade through your gobbledygook, you seem to be disagreeing with this article. (correct me if i’m wrong) i tend to agree with you here. If one were to draw a trend line through his graph, that trend line would show an increasing rate of warming over time on average. So this would actually support agw theory (although it doesn’t support the models which all show constant increasing warming)…

afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
June 28, 2017 1:00 pm

(this may be the most compelling argument FOR agw that i’ve ever seen)…

Reply to  afonzarelli
June 28, 2017 1:24 pm

… that trend line would show an increasing rate of warming over time on average.
Wouldn’t it actually show an increasing rate of warming over CO2 concentration, since the horizontal axis is not a time axis? And even so, and more importantly, wouldn’t the trend line hide some important squiggles that tend to make one question the strength of a causal relationship between CO2 concentration and warming rate?

commieBob
Reply to  afonzarelli
June 28, 2017 1:40 pm

afonzarelli June 28, 2017 at 1:00 pm
(this may be the most compelling argument FOR agw that i’ve ever seen)…

Sad isn’t it. The alarmists use exactly that logic. Gracie Allen would be proud of them.
It goes something like this: None of the other explanations of what’s happening are completely valid, therefore CO2 must be the cause.

Dave Fair
Reply to  afonzarelli
June 28, 2017 2:40 pm

One needs put time and El Ninos on the horizontal axis. I’m pretty sure El Ninos will push the correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperatures higher than otherwise. Look at what’s going on at the end of the graph.

Reply to  afonzarelli
June 28, 2017 3:56 pm

Please read the graph. He plots the 7year average change in degrees/century vs. CO2 concentration. Higher CO2 should increase the rate of change. The rate did change over time, but has not increased any more than it’s decreased. Over the period the rate of change averages close to 0deg/century.
If CO2 is currently increasing the rate of change of the temperature the graph should be a hockey stick. Presumably, the lack of effect is due to the fact that CO2 is already absorbing most all the energy it can absorb(a logarithmic absorption curve) so any increases don’t much affect any temperature increase.

commieBob
Reply to  afonzarelli
June 28, 2017 5:02 pm

gobbledygook

🙂 Guilty as charged.
Your car’s suspension is a good example of a system.
If I want to be able to calculate how the car will respond to bumps in the road, I can measure its response to something.
Suppose that a paving crew quit for the night and there’s a two inch drop from the new pavement to the old pavement.
You drive over the drop and the car bounces up and down a bit.
That’s a step change. The wheels move down two inches and then, assuming flat pavement, stay at that level as the car continues to roll along.
If I measure how the car bounced in response to that step change, I can write an equation that will predict how the car will respond to other reasonable sized bumps.
There are lots of ways to measure a system’s behaviour. Which one you use will depend on what you’re trying to do and what instruments you have. Response to a step change is one that is commonly taught.
If I’m measuring a system’s response, the system will be at some equilibrium and I will disturb it with a step input.
The trouble with trying to measure the climate’s response is that it is never at equilibrium. It’s always changing. We really have no way of knowing what would have happened if CO2 hadn’t increased. There are ways around that but it’s complicated.

Duster
Reply to  afonzarelli
June 28, 2017 5:02 pm

philohippous June 28, 2017 at 3:56 pm
In fact, what is plotted are seven year spans to temperature trends as a function of CO2 concentration. The writer argues that IF warming rates are a function of CO2 concentration, which is actually the basis of the climate models the IPCC uses, then there should be a linear relation between warming trends (he uses degrees per century) and CO2. He doesn’t see any. I would say there does appear to be a weak positive trend toward higher mean CO2 levels. What is apparent is that the relationship isn’t simple in his plot.
It would be nice to see WIllis weigh in here.

Rick C PE
Reply to  afonzarelli
June 28, 2017 5:47 pm

Running a linear regression and putting a trend line through this data would be meaningless – it’s the R-Squared which would be of interest. The R-squared would be very small and that tells you that the change in the independent variable (CO2) does not explain the change in the dependent variable (temperature).

Ray in SC
Reply to  afonzarelli
June 29, 2017 11:27 am

The graph title and y-axis labels are wrong. The graph ‘sourcing’ indicates that the vertical axis represents 7 year averaged HADCRUT4 monthly telperature anomalies, not rate of temperature change. Thus, as explained in the article, if CO2 caused warming, you would expect higher CO2 concentrations to correlate with higher temperature anomalies. Specifically, the temperature anomaly at 400ppm, for example, should be higher than the anomaly at any lower concentration. It matters not whether the relationship is linear, curved, or asymptotic, there should be an increasing trend.
Instead, we see no correlation of any sort. Yes, temperature anomalies at higher concentrations do seem to be more positive than at lower concentrations but, and it’s a big but, the temperature anomaly at 400ppm was lower than any other concentration down to 380ppm, and was exceeded by peaks at five concentrations lower than 380ppm.
Hardly what you would expect of CO2 was the control knob to the climate.

Reply to  afonzarelli
June 29, 2017 2:21 pm

The lack of correlation in the article is for the temperature rate of change which the author compares with the direct CO2 level in the atmosphere.
Seems to me that he compares apples with oranges (as good as the reverse: comparing the temperature variability and trend with the CO2 rate of change variability and trend!).
There is no reason that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere must increase the temperature rate of change. All what must happen is that the average temperature rate of change over the full period is positive: in that case, higher CO2 levels cause higher temperatures…
It would be a straight line in the temperature rate of change with a small offset from zero (0.66°C/century in the graph) if CO2 was the only driver of temperature, but as CO2 is only a small driver in a myriad of other (temporarily or not) drivers, that results in a lot of noise which does hide the influence of CO2 on temperature, no matter how small or big it is.

Reply to  afonzarelli
June 29, 2017 2:43 pm

Lots if comments down already did cover my point…
The author has written a very wise addendum:
Self-criticism of the « no evidence » finding
at
http://blog.mr-int.ch/?p=4165&lang=en&

Ray in SC
Reply to  afonzarelli
June 30, 2017 11:17 am

Ferdinand,
Thanks, I stand corrected, the y-axis is rate of change.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
June 28, 2017 1:01 pm

Assuming a step function, how long would you wait for the graph to respond before concluding that there is no relationship?

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2017 3:46 pm

According to James Hansen, it could be hundreds of years. link
In spite of all the alarmist crap that we’re already seeing the result of human caused global warming, James Hansen admits that isn’t the case. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t his intent.

Dixon
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2017 5:56 pm

Those of us who’ve been following this since at least the 1990s will recall that it was going to take a long time for the damage to be wrought from all that CO2. That was, and still is, plausible, but it also means we have lots of time. Alarmism was born of the need for urgency to fix the CO2 problem. You can’t have it both ways: either temps respond quickly to CO2 (in which case the AGW hypothesis must be rejected) or temps respond slowly, in which case we can monitor them and either transition to less intensive emissions, or adapt, or sequester CO2, or a mix of all 3. This has not, for a long time, been about science. Its been about money and politics, but especially money.
Great figure btw, I scanned it and couldn’t understand why you were talking about a scatter plot but showing a timeseries!

Gabro
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2017 6:00 pm

Dixon June 28, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Good point. In order to keep up the urgency scare, CACA adherents have had to resort to nonexistent current horrors while awaiting the alleged even more horrible horrors to come.

Tom
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2017 7:01 pm

If you look at the relationship between Solar exposure and temperature, sunlight peaked this week, and temperature will peak in several weeks. That sets the lag between “forcing” and temperature response at about one month. I see no reason that response time will be much different for most any “forcing”.

Gabro
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2017 7:03 pm

Tom June 28, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Also a good point. “Climate science” misses the most obvious evidence from nature. That’s because they don’t do observation. They do GIGO modeling designed to yield a desired result.

Kurt
Reply to  commieBob
June 28, 2017 1:17 pm

“I would not conclude that the lack of a straight line DIDN”T mean there was NO causality.”
Before I accuse you of constructing a straw man, could you clarify whether you meant to use the double negative highlighted in that sentence? I’m almost positive that the author of the post is not arguing that the lack of a straight line meant that there WAS a causal relationship between rising CO2 concentration and the rate of temperature increase (if the double negative was intended). Nor do I think that the author of the post argued that the lack of a straight line meant that there was no causal relationship between rising CO2 concentration.and the rate of temperature increase. What the author is arguing is that, because there is no apparent relationship shown in the graph, an empirical relationship between rising CO2 concentrations and warming rate of Earth’s temperatures has not yet been established. That’s not the same thing as a positive assertion that the graph shows that there is “no causality.”
I suppose that, either way, you’re attacking a straw man. But I just can’t tell what straw man you’re using until you clarify your grammatical usage.

commieBob
Reply to  Kurt
June 28, 2017 3:01 pm

What Michel said was:

Zero on the y-axis means that neither warming nor cooling takes place.
At high [CO2] some cooling was observed, at lower [CO2] high warming rates were observed.
Honestly, no statistically valid correlation tying warming rate to [CO2] can be derived from it.
Sorry, no statistical significance, no hint of a proof!

CO2 has been increasing in a pretty much linear fashion. Something perfectly correlated with it would also increase in a pretty much linear fashion. The fact that it doesn’t happen that way does not mean there is no causality.
We can’t say CAGW is bogus just because it doesn’t conform to that particular simple explanation.

Dave Fair
Reply to  commieBob
June 28, 2017 4:37 pm

It takes a real commie to say black is white with a straight face.

Reply to  Kurt
June 28, 2017 3:53 pm

But a trend line is a LINE, right. So, doesn’t a trend line, by its very nature, beg the question of simple causality? Otherwise, why use trend lines at all? They seem to hide the squiggles of the complexity of it all.

Kurt
Reply to  Kurt
June 28, 2017 4:32 pm

“Something perfectly correlated with it would also increase in a pretty much linear fashion. The fact that it doesn’t happen that way does not mean there is no causality. We can’t say CAGW is bogus just because it doesn’t conform to that particular simple explanation.”
The author never claimed that his graph demonstrated that “CAGW is bogus” or that “there is no causality.” That’s the straw man you’re constructing. The author claimed that the graph refuted the alarmist contention that there is strong (90%+) certainty that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming during the industrial age. The title of his post made that clear, as well as did the final rhetorical question asked at the end of the article.
You’re doing exactly what Gavin Schmidt tried to do to Judith Curry after her congressional testimony. When someone presents a persuasive argument that the evidence does not support the alarmist assertion that CO2 is causing a lot of warming, you first twist that around into a asserted proposition that CO2 is not causing a lot of warming, and then say that the empirical data offered does not support this straw man argument. As the title of this post says, “no evidence” either way is often the most scientifically accurate conclusion.

Kurt
Reply to  Kurt
June 28, 2017 5:24 pm

CommieBob: I should clarify that I don’t have a problem with your initial criticism of the graph as not being on point. At least that’s how I broadly took your statement that you would have applied a step and tracked the response over time (although you can’t actually do that experiment on the Earth). I just have a pet peeve about not sticking to the actual arguments someone makes.
My big issue with the graph is that I don’t see how a plot of the time rate of change of temperature as a function of CO2 concentration is useful. If there is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures, the time derivative of temperature should fluctuate randomly. If there is a correlation between CO2 and temperatures, then the time derivative of temperature should change as some function of the time derivative of CO2 concentration, but that’s not shown.
I suspect that the author incorrectly thinks that higher concentrations of CO2 causes faster warming. Higher CO2 concentrations simply create a higher temperature, though.

commieBob
Reply to  Kurt
June 28, 2017 7:01 pm

Dave Fair June 28, 2017 at 4:37 pm
It takes a real commie to say black is white with a straight face.

I try not to deal with black and white, only various shades of grey. Anyone who thinks life is black and white simple is living in cloud cuckoo land.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Kurt
June 28, 2017 9:55 pm

(so in other words, Bob, you’re not a ‘real commie’… ☺)

billw1984
Reply to  Kurt
June 29, 2017 6:27 am

As I said earlier, just look at 1910-1940. Here is the NOAA link to how and why they adjust temperatures (very informative).
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
They have some trend lines fit that show that in more recent times, the change in temperature per century increase up to about 1.65 C/century. But what they don’t address is that even after their adjustments (not that large of an effect since it has land and ocean) if you look at 1910-1940 you can see that there is ~0.5 C change, possibly more, over those 30 years which would be at least 1.5 C/century, possibly 1.65 C or more which is equal to or greater than the most recent period. Even in GISS (from memory), the 1910-40 warming is about half the magnitude of the more recent warming. And CO2 concentrations were fairly flat over those 30 years.

george e. smith
Reply to  commieBob
June 28, 2017 1:31 pm

Well I believe that Ohm required that ALL other physical variable values remain constant while you are varying the current or the voltage, or both of them.
That of course is a physical impossibility. You cannot maintain the Temperature of the conductive medium, while you are changing the amount of energy being dissipated in it.
Ohms law only applies to metallic conductors.
But you are correct: Ohm’s law simply says R = Const.
And of course R = E/I is the definition of what R is.
Most conductive materials do NOT obey Ohm’s Law any how.
G

commieBob
Reply to  george e. smith
June 28, 2017 3:27 pm

Most conductive materials do NOT obey Ohm’s Law any how.

Given: A nominal 100 watt 120V incandescent light bulb.
Given: Resistance measured with an ohmmeter = 10 &Ohm;
Calculate: Current drawn at 120 V.
Calculate: Power = Volts x Amps
Answer: Why is it called a 100 watt bulb?
Answer: What went wrong?
The majority of engineering texts are full of equations with not the merest mention of where they do or do not apply.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  george e. smith
June 28, 2017 5:06 pm

@commieBob
Well, electricians, and most engineers for that matter, recognize that the filament heats up mighty darn quick, increasing it’s resistance substantially. When it reaches its stable radiative temperature, the final resistance is about 144 Ω. And by the way, the actual resistance at room temperature is more like 0.15 Ω.

commieBob
Reply to  george e. smith
June 28, 2017 5:52 pm

D. J. Hawkins June 28, 2017 at 5:06 pm
Well, electricians, and most engineers for that matter, recognize that the filament heats up mighty darn quick, …

True. Most students will try to apply a formula no matter how inappropriate it is. I used the above example to illustrate the problem for first semester students.
Sadly, a lot of scientists fall into the same trap with statistical tools. They throw their data into Matlab and keep applying different tools until they find something that looks significant. It’s called significance chasing and results in a lot of bogus research papers.

Catcracking
Reply to  commieBob
June 28, 2017 3:48 pm

Any first year Engineering student would have trouble seeing a correlation between CO 2 rise and Temperature rise. As an engineer, anyone who claimed a correlation would be ignored by his peers. Engineers look for correlations all the time including failure analysis and there is no correlation. Possibly any relationship is being totally masked by other natural or man caused factors. Absent identification of those factors it would be negligence to make such a claim in the engineering world.

commieBob
Reply to  Catcracking
June 28, 2017 5:33 pm

It depends on how you present the data. The alarmists will draw a graph with one curve showing smoothed temperatures from 1900 to the present along with another curve showing CO2 increasing over the same period. It will look like there is a correlation. It’s just a matter of how you spin the data. 🙁
We have been warming out of the Little Ice Age. There’s no way around that. Atmospheric CO2 has increased. There’s also no way around that.
One of my engineering heroes is Burt Rutan. I think he became a skeptic when he noticed the spin the alarmists were putting on the data. He has developed a compelling case for the skeptic position.
We have to be able to counter the alarmists on everything. It’s like playing Whack-A-Mole. If we can’t reply to any of their points, they will insist that means they are right and a certain portion of the public, and apparently 97% of politicians, will believe it.

Catcracking
Reply to  Catcracking
June 30, 2017 9:23 am

Commie …
You raise an interesting point;however, Engineers where I worked would look at the data in all ways possible for troubleshooting or new Processes or equipment “improvements”, otherwise they would be embarrassed when the manager or a gadfly asked some questions. Unfortunately a biased presentation or analysis would affect you ranking and rating when that rolls around.
In my experience one needs to be skeptical about statistical tricks. For example an average temperature over an extended period washing out transients or upsets doesn’t help when the temperature reached 1800 degrees, which could have been the cause of failure. In the old days the plant operators were known to occasionally tear up the charts when there was an upset. Today with digital readings from computers data loss also occurs when the storage system deletes short term data and saves only things like daily averages, unless someone makes a point to save the short term data.
It seems to me when their is no correlation for up to 18 years between temperature and CO 2 concentration, someone has a lot explaining to do other than to Karalize the data. Looking at raw data is essential to detect biased adjustments.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Catcracking
June 30, 2017 12:23 pm

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a non-regulatory agency in the Department of Commerce, should issue an RFP for private companies to evaluate the bases of climate data adjustments made by all Federal agencies. A separate RFP should be issued for an analysis of the development of a new National Climate Assessment and any claims of worsening weather patterns around the U.S.
No matter if it is true or not, there is a strong conviction among many observers that Federal Agencies involved in climate related work are politically biased and that many of their employees are activists, not primarily disinterested parties. The NIST and independent private contractors should be free of much of the suspicion of politics driving governmental climate science. They can at least be policed in an open environment.

Steve Case
June 28, 2017 12:25 pm

I have only one questions to ask to all mainstream climate-experts, and their gullible followers in the public, the media, and in the political world:
What observational evidence can you provide to sustain the allegation that temperature is “very likely” and mostly driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?

Therein lies the reason Dr. Gavin Schmidt et al. wouldn’t share the stage with Dr. Roy Spencer.
You Tube: Global Warming – Dr. Gavin Schmidt Versus Dr. Roy Spencer

Kurt
Reply to  Steve Case
June 28, 2017 1:33 pm

If you read the IPCC reports carefully, you’ll see that they admit that their probability statements of “extremely likely” (95%) “very likely” (90%) etc. just reflect subjective opinions. As I recall, after the table breaking down what words mean what probabilities, they just drop a footnote saying that these assessments reflect their own “expert judgment” – presumably just those of the authors.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Kurt
June 28, 2017 5:00 pm

Kurt
I think ‘subjective opinion’ requires at least some thought behind the values selected and the words attached. What evidence is there that the IPCC authors or editors applied their minds to this matter? Are these standard terms with common definitions? I have never come across them in my ISO work.

Kurt
Reply to  Kurt
June 28, 2017 5:36 pm

Hey – you’re preaching to the choir here. I think the phrase “scientific opinion” Is an oxymoron, and that the word “expert” has to be earned by performance, not just by study and publication.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Kurt
June 29, 2017 6:33 am

Kurt
I think this deserves consistent attention. It is one thing to ramble about more or less confidence, but that means ‘proof’ of AGW boils down to a bunch of subjective opinions. A bunch of opinions is not a ‘scientific consensus’ because ‘scientific’ does have a definition. One could even say “scientists’ consensus” but that doesn’t mean it is scientific any more than a chiropractors’ consensus or a grant receivers’ consensus.

Tom Halla
June 28, 2017 12:27 pm

Interesting graph.

Hugs
June 28, 2017 12:44 pm

no statistical significance

Math?

Michael 2
June 28, 2017 12:50 pm

An interesting non-obvious representation of the relationship of data points. It would be a bit of a feat to tease out the temporal aspect of the higher concentrations.

Gustaf Warren
June 28, 2017 1:02 pm

Uh – that’s ”chill conductively.”

1sky1
June 28, 2017 1:32 pm

Honestly, no statistically valid correlation tying warming rate to [CO2] can be derived from it.

This assertion is patently contradicted by the authors own graph, But mere correlation is NOT causation. What makes CO2 concentration an implausible driver of modern temperature variations is its LAGGING phase relationship to temperature.

Reply to  1sky1
June 28, 2017 2:13 pm

“But mere correlation is NOT causation.” Edward Tufte had this to say:
“Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality.”
“Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.”
Certainly the physical properties of CO2 and sound physics by experiment show covariation and causation. Translating that property to the atmosphere is a very thorny problem not yet solved.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  capitalistfiles
June 29, 2017 6:42 am

capitalistfiles
“Certainly the physical properties of CO2 and sound physics by experiment show covariation and causation.”
I am sorry but that is quite insufficient. No causation ahs been demonstrated. Not at all.
There are multiple ways that covariance can be demonstrated, and frankly, CO2 and temperature to not co-vary well. The CoV is about 0.53 which is so close to a dart board guess it is quite unconvincing.
Some of the time there is a good correlation and sometimes it is negative. On various time scales there are different lags, with CO2 always behind. That points to warmth being the cause of a CO2 concentration increase (obviously from the ocean which is the only available large reservoir).
So when it comes to the physics, it is clear that warmer = more CO2, and that there is a large reservoir of CO2 available in the ocean to provide it. Since we don’t have any good examples of CO2 leading a temperature rise, we can’t point to obvious physics to explain it, because it hasn’t happened. In all the ‘co-varying’ the CO2 follows temperature. So, they do indeed co-vary, but only after the temperature starts driving it.
That is a pretty sorry explanation for a CO2-driven temperature rise.

pochas94
Reply to  1sky1
June 28, 2017 2:15 pm

Yeahbut, lack of correlation disproves causation, and that’s what the graph is showing. Maybe there is a minor, very long – term effect of CO2, but if CO2 keeps increasing and temperatures stop rising, there is more to it than just CO2.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  pochas94
June 28, 2017 4:18 pm

Believing in models that have been incoherent with reality over decades and waiting for nature to match the predictions in the future is like believing your favorite team will overcome a huge point deficit during the last moments of the game.

1sky1
Reply to  1sky1
June 28, 2017 4:35 pm

At issue here is a PHASE relationship between two TIME SERIES, which is not at all displayed by any scattergram. The opinion of a statistician in the social sciences about causal relationships does not begin to address that crucial point. Nevertheless, it’s apparent at a glance that there’s a distinct positive trend in the scattergram presented here and the scatter does not remotely resemble that of wholly uncorrelated variables.

Resourceguy
June 28, 2017 1:35 pm

Univariate models tend to do that.

RWturner
June 28, 2017 1:57 pm

Unfortunately, circumstantial evidence is good enough for government work.

June 28, 2017 2:02 pm

But is there a corr btwn log(atmos.co2) and surface temp?

Dave Fair
Reply to  chaamjamal
June 28, 2017 2:49 pm

There can’t be, chaamjamal. Since 1958, earth’s temperatures have varied all over the place on decadal time scales while CO2 concentrations have increased in a generally linear fashion.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 28, 2017 4:33 pm

I’d bet that equatorial Pacific SSTs correlate more closely to changes in atmospheric temps than CO2.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Pop Piasa
June 28, 2017 4:57 pm

Just ask Bob Tisdale, Pop.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  chaamjamal
June 28, 2017 5:30 pm

That is a good point. This post is misconceived. The rate of temperature rise with CO2 is supposed to be diminishing (but positive) because of the log relation. I have plotted below the actual evolution of temperature with CO2 – it is consistently rising, but indeed, the slope may be reducing – it is hard to tell.

Gabro
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2017 5:36 pm

Nope.
The correlation in your graph jumps with the recent rise above 400 ppm, thanks to the super El Nino of 2016.
In every possible way, the CACA conjecture has been shown false in detail.

old engineer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 29, 2017 11:22 am

Nick
I was waiting for someone to point out the RATE of temperature increase is supposed to decrease with increasing CO2 concentration, since temperature is supposed to have a logarithmic relationship to CO2 concentration. Thanks.

Paul Penrose
June 28, 2017 3:28 pm

If CO2 were a major driver of temperature, you would expect a much better correlation than that. That graph implies that either CO2 is not a major driver of temperature, or the climate system is not very stable and temperature is very sensitive to even small changes. But we know that climate is actually quite stable on the timescales being discussed, so the former must be true; CO2 is not a major driver of temperature. Its affects are being masked by all the other contributors and probably can’t be individually determined at this time.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Paul Penrose
June 28, 2017 5:16 pm

@Nick
I believe you misapprehend what is being plotted. The x-axis is clearly atmospheric concentration of CO2. The y-axis is the local rate of temperature change at that concentration. If CO2 were well correlated with temperature, with no acceleration or deceleration we should have a more or less straight line at zero. If there were the “built-in” warming Hansen hyperventilates about, you should see a straight-ish line above zero.

Kurt
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 28, 2017 9:02 pm

Nick’s got it right. The global warming hypothesis does not suppose a relationship between CO2 concentration and the rate of temperature increase. It supposes a relationship between CO2 concentration and temperatures. There can be a linear relationship between voltage and current through a resistor. Testing this relationship to find a “resistance” does not involve plotting current through the resistor as a function of how fast the voltage across it changes. Those kinds of linear functions of changing voltage or current are reflected in capacitance and inductance,respectively.

Gabro
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 28, 2017 9:06 pm

Kurt,
There is no evidence whatsoever that more CO2 causes an increase in temperature in the actual climate system, and all the evidence in the world against this repeatedly falsified hypothesis.

Kurt
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 29, 2017 3:56 am

Look, I’m about as skeptical of the AGW scare as you’re going to find, but you’re wrong on both counts. First. there’s lots of evidence for the (trivial) proposition that more CO2 causes an increase in actual temperatures. We can debate over the amount, and whether its even detectable, but the mere experimental confirmation that CO2 is an infrared absorber with absorption bands that don’t completely overlap that of other GHGs like water, is persuasive evidence that rising CO2 concentrations have to at least cause some increase in temperature.
Second, please don’t needlessly flip the relevant question into one of falsifying the GHG hypothesis, which is impossible to do. You only feed the warmists by doing so. Nothing I’ve seen comes close to falsifying the notion that rising CO2 causes a rise in temperatures. Nor is there any conclusive evidence that falsifies a hypothesis that the rise in temperatures will be dangerous.
The real question is whether there is any persuasive evidence that the rise in temperatures from CO2 increases is dangerous, and to even begin to evaluate that, you have to first quantify the rise in temperatures. Since I agree that there is no method of doing this that has been demonstrated to be reliable over any boundaries at all, merely fretting over global warming is foolish, let alone tolerating any actual sacrifices on the altar of “climate change” (higher electricity rates, hindered growth, the opportunity cost of not bringing cheap power generation to the developing world and instead letting people die of respiratory diseases from inhaling noxious fumes from organic home heating fuels, etc).

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 29, 2017 7:03 am

Kurt
I want to pick up on the point about CO2 absorbing therefore it is an insulator (which is basically what the claim is for GHG’s). I was reading on another site and the point was made that no one uses an IR absorbing gas in a double window to keep the heat in. They do the opposite.
Why is that? My double windows are filled with Argon. It retains the heat on the hot side. If I put water vapour or CO2 in the window, it would release more heat to the outside be re-radiation.
Why? Because it would capture the outgoing heat by conduction and IR and re-radiate it effectively out the other window. Is that correct? If not, why is Argon used?
Argon’s Specific heat is 20.85[3] J/(mol·K).
Water vapour’s specific heat is 1.864 kJ/(kg·K)[3]
Far lower! So they are not using argon because it doesn’t carry much heat. If you want to transfer more heat from a hot to a cold region, use an IR-intercepting gas.
If weI put a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere, it more effectively radiates energy into space. I am using a castable refractory material at the moment, and I want it to conduct heat. Should I use a material that captures the heat better and moves it better in both directions, or not? If I add 15% silicon carbide, it transfers 33% more heat because it is denser. But that doesn’t work for windows, right?
There is a heck of a lot more Argon in the atmosphere than there is CO2. Is global warming caused by Argon??

Nick Stokes
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 29, 2017 12:29 pm

“Why is that? My double windows are filled with Argon. “
Glass is quite opaque to thermal IR. There is no need to try to increase the opacity of the gas. In any case, the scale is quite inappropriate. In the atmosphere, IR has to travel through many km of air. Talking about the amount absorbed in a cm or so is irrelevant.

Kurt
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 29, 2017 5:08 pm

I partially agree with Crispin on this one. You have to distinguish between two effects here. GHGs in the atmosphere do not intercept and “re-radiate” the heat they capture, at least not directly. My understanding is that the gas molecules collide with sufficient frequency that 99.99% of the heat that gets intercepted by GHGs is simply transferred away to other air molecules, most of which cannot re-radiate. But GHGs do re-radiate proportionally to the 4th power of their temperature, so when you increase GHG concentrations, you at least temporarily (more on that below) get more atmospheric radiation (up and down) merely by virtue of increasing the molar fraction of GHGs in the atmosphere.
The Earth’s surface still has some fraction of it’s outgoing IR radiation that goes directly to space. In dry desert areas, polar regions etc. where there isn’t enough water vapor to saturate the outgoing radiation, increasing CO2 will intercept this heat that would otherwise have escaped, and send half of the newly intercepted heat back down as a textbook feedback loop. Similarly, since CO2’s absorption bands don’t perfectly overlap those of water vapor, adding CO2 will intercept outgoing surface IR in those bands, adding to the feedback loop. This effect has to produce warming.
On the other hand, increasing GHG concentrations makes the bulk atmosphere more efficient at releasing heat. But the heat released here is the heat stored in the atmosphere. Think of the nitrogen, oxygen, etc. in the atmosphere as a buffer that stores heat, and the GHGs as conduits that receive heat from the surface, put it into the buffer, then take the heat from the buffer and send it off after some delay. By adding GHGs, the very first effect should be a burst of heat as the GHGs instantly start radiating away stored heat in the atmosphere (and remember, aside from deserts, polar regions, and frequency side bands, the existing GHGs already absorbed everything from the surface, so the added GHGs are going to radiate more stored heat than the additional heat captured from the surface. You should get a temporary cooling effect in the atmosphere as the stored heat gets drawn down from the “buffer” until a new, lower equilibrium temperature is reached where the outgoing radiation was about exactly what it was before (except for a slight increase due to intercepting more surface radiation described in the previous paragraph). So the cooling effect you describe is real, but it only applies to the atmosphere, and it shouldn’t ultimately change the equilibrium radiation from the atmosphere to the surface.
Now, the global warming alarmists don’t agree with this last paragraph. They posit there is an “enhanced” greenhouse effect where adding more CO2 to the atmosphere basically divides the atmosphere into added layers where layer 2 intercepts and re-radiates back to layer 1, and so forth – moving the boundary at which the Earth radiates into space ever upwards, at a fixed temperature, and that as this temperature migrates upwards through the atmosphere, the gas laws keep driving lower atmospheric temperatures upward from the “adiabatic lapse rate.”
That’s the point that I jump of the theoretical GHG ship. I don’t think this model is realistic since those very gas laws provide other means for heat to travel upwards beyond radiation, and this whole theory smacks of that fallacy that if you keep dividing the distance A has to travel to B in half, and consider each increment separately A can never travel to B.

Nick Stokes
June 28, 2017 4:13 pm

That graph is not plotting like with like. It plots cumulative CO2 with temperature rate, which disguises the fact that the rate is mostly positive. Here is the proper plot of temperature (7 year smooth) vs MLO CO2. The correlation is quite clear:comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2017 4:47 pm

Nick
By that graph, you mean the one in the main post ???

Nick Stokes
Reply to  ozonebust
June 28, 2017 4:56 pm

Yes. The absence of evidence is achieved by differencing the temperature, which adds noise and disguises the very clear relation.

Catcracking
Reply to  ozonebust
June 30, 2017 9:40 am

Try doing the plot without 7 year smoothing which hides the lack of correlation.

Gabro
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2017 5:12 pm

Nick,
CO2 went from 368 ppm in 1999 to 404 ppm in 2016 (with a big jump that year due to warmer water from the super El Nino) without any increase in average global temperature, except from El Ninos.
Thus the CACA hypothesis is yet again falsified, as it always is, and never confirmed.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 5:28 pm

And from 1959 to 1977, Earth actually cooled while CO2 was rising from 316 to 334. It also rose from 1945 to 1958 as well, but we lack Keeling Curve data for the interval of rapid cooling.
No correlation means no causation.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 5:33 pm

Not if one dreams up the right amounts of aerosols at the right times, Gabro.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 5:32 pm

The early pause is shown in correct proportion in my graph. The rise in CO2 wasn’t much. Over most of the CO2 range, the rise in temperature has been consistent.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 5:43 pm

Nick,
It was not a “pause”. It was such a dramatic cooling that Callendar considered his hypothesis of beneficial global warming from 1938 falsified in 1962. It was so pronounced that prominent scientists feared a return of the ice age.
Only in the cooked books of corrupt gatekeepers was the cooling anything at all like a “pause”. Nor is 316 to 334 insignificant. A gain of 18 ppm in 18 years amounts to 6%, and followed thirteen years of similar gains.
The drop in temperature of the ’40s to ’70s was greater than the gain in the ’70s to ’00s, after which came a “pause”, more properly a plateau, since it’s as least as likely to be followed by declining rather than rising temperatures.
Dave,
Yes, the book cookers and computer gamers try to hide reality, but the truth will out. Unfortunately none of the cr!minal c@nspir@tors will go to jail, or be executed, as they deserve.

David A
Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 6:03 pm

Indeed. The only good corelation to CO 2 increase is the adjustments to the data. ( The remov of the blip, cooling thr past, earming the present, plus 50 percent id data made up)

TA
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 5:40 am

David A wrote: “Indeed. The only good corelation to CO 2 increase is the adjustments to the data.”
That’s right. They cook the surface temperature books to make it look like there is some kind of correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures. That is the purpose for the dishonest adjustments made to the surface temperature record. If they didn’t bastardize the surface temperature record, their CAGW speculation blows up in their face. It’s about to blow up in their face anyway, bastardized surface temperature chart or not, if the temperatures don’t start going up, up, up, soon, soon, soon.

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2017 5:30 pm

The rules say CO2 is logarithmic…..shouldn’t those lines diverge?

Hugs
Reply to  Latitude
June 29, 2017 12:30 am

The log has a much smaller impact than natural short-term temperature variation. But yes, it should be there.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2017 5:32 pm

Correct. Plotting value A against another value B is not the same as plotting a derivative of A against a value B. Derivatives bear no relationship to the original value and that is the reason we use them – they reveal things we don’t see in the basic data.

joel
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2017 5:41 pm

What if you put “Year” on the x-axis?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  joel
June 28, 2017 7:30 pm

Joel,
“What if you put “Year” on the x-axis?”
The head post puts the proposition:
“So, in all logic, you should be interested in a representation of the temperature evolution in dependence of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
and then did something else. I’ve done what he said should be done.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 28, 2017 11:43 pm

Nick Stokes:
As usual, you attempt to deflect attention from the subject under discussion by talking about a different subject.
In this case, there are two matters being discussed.
Firstly, the fact that there is no evidence for discernible anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global climate change.
If there were some such evidence then you could falsify the fact by stating the evidence. But you know the fact is true so such falsification is not possible and, therefore, you are pretending two variables both rising over time is evidence that one is causal of the other.
Raw data of temperature vs MLO CO2 does not correlate. Your provision of “(7 year smoothed)” data merely shows the effect of the processing you have chosen to apply. It is not evidence for discernible anthropogenic global climate change.
This is why the scientific Null Hypothesis is important (and why you pretend it does not exist). Every scientist knows there is no reason to assume a cause of a change differs from previous causes of the same change, and there is no recent global climate change that is unprecedented in the Holocene.
This brings us to the other matter being discussed.
Interpretation of data presented in the above article by Michel de Rougemont.
Two variables rising is not evidence for the cause of the rise of either of them. Importantly, correlation is NOT evidence of causation although it is a necessary condition of causation (similarly, presence of a suspect at the site of a crime is not evidence that the suspect committed the crime although it is a necessary condition of the suspect having committed the crime).
Richard

Nick Stokes
Reply to  richardscourtney
June 29, 2017 12:24 am

Richard
“Importantly, correlation is NOT evidence of causation”
But the author contends, with his spurious graph, that there is no correlation. The following is probably correct:
“Honestly, no statistically valid correlation tying warming rate to [CO2] can be derived from it.”
But spurious, because no-one contends warming rate can be tied to CO2 level, though it might to CO2 rate of increase. But then everything is masked by the noise of differencing. His reasonable suggestion of the dependence of temperature on warming is not what he provided. I did.
As for your first, that is just general purpose sloganeering. The author has raised a specific issue, and I am explaining why it is spurious. Not every post can be a complete proof of AGW.

David A
Reply to  richardscourtney
June 29, 2017 3:08 am

The rate of increase is relatively constant, and the rate of increase T in the troposphere and unbiased surface record is a fail to IPCC CAGW postulated theory.

TA
Reply to  richardscourtney
June 29, 2017 5:43 am

“Raw data of temperature vs MLO CO2 does not correlate.”
I love the way you get right to the pertinent point, Richard. 🙂

DonM
Reply to  richardscourtney
June 29, 2017 12:40 pm

Nick,
Not ANY post can be a complete proof of AGW.

Reply to  richardscourtney
June 29, 2017 1:35 pm

Nick
The discussion of atmospheric CO2 in PPM is simply quite misleading
What I have not seen by anyone so far is to produce a chart showing the relative saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere over the recorded period.
What is the relative saturation of CO2 at 180ppm at minus 9C average, compared to 280 at plus 14C ave.
There have been strong El Nino events to be considered.
The sinks, biospheres and the fluid that transports CO2 between (the atmosphere) have a relative saturation relationship. I have never seen such a simple subject made so complicated by so many. If you state PPM, for any sort of accuracy, you MUST state the temperature. Relative saturation is a stand alone value.But one should also explain the trend in the equilibrium status – i.e. is it cooling or warming for clarity.
Heres the 64,000 $ statement. When ever earth is changing from glacial to interglacial – the RELATIVE SATURATION is lower meaning there is less CO2, the reverse applies when cooling.
Change the discussion to the true state of the relationship – and put it into perspective.
Regards

Gabro
Reply to  richardscourtney
June 29, 2017 1:44 pm

Ozone,
True. The average density of the atmosphere should be considered. The colder troposphere during a glacial might contain only 180 ppm of CO2, but the molecules would be closer together, compared to a hotter interglacial atmosphere with 280 ppm.

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
June 29, 2017 3:44 pm

Nick Stokes:
You really are a clown!
My post to you began by saying

As usual, you attempt to deflect attention from the subject under discussion by talking about a different subject.
In this case, there are two matters being discussed.
Firstly, the fact that there is no evidence for discernible anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global climate change.
If there were some such evidence then you could falsify the fact by stating the evidence. But you know the fact is true so such falsification is not possible and, therefore, you are pretending two variables both rising over time is evidence that one is causal of the other.

And you have replied to that by saying

As for your first, that is just general purpose sloganeering. The author has raised a specific issue, and I am explaining why it is spurious. Not every post can be a complete proof of AGW.

Bollocks! The subject under discussion is NOT “sloganeering” and the article under discussion is titled “No evidence” is a useful scientific finding.
A request for any evidence of AGW is not a demand for a “complete proof of AGW”
As you usually do, you are talking about something other than the subject under discussion.

Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
June 29, 2017 3:51 pm

Further
Gabro
Welcome to the real world, thank you.
Further – the cold atmosphere of the NH winter >50oN is so dense and saturated that it is unlikely to be receptive to further gas uptake.
Now look at the CO2 curves for Cold Bay Alaska, Ireland etc, all those in mid to high lattitudes and that is why the curves go flat for three months. The Cold bay curve is nothing more than an atmospheric transport curve, transporting atmosphere from high presure areas into the low presure Arctic.
Mauna Loa is a transport curve also.
I made specialised systems that changed the state of equilibriums, for many years, and have patents,, but what oi I know comapred to an educated person talking about partial pressure. Goodness me.
Regards

1sky1
Reply to  richardscourtney
June 30, 2017 4:12 pm

[N]o-one contends warming rate can be tied to CO2 level, though it might to CO2 rate of increase. But then everything is masked by the noise of differencing.

Wrong on both counts! If there’s a logarithmic dependence of temperature T upon CO2 concentration C, dT should be proportional to 1/C, i.e., decreasing with increasing concentration according to the AGW bible. And far from increasing the noise, first differencing data (the discrete-time analogue of differentiating) simply high passes the signal, without changing the S/N ratio at all.
The most egregious misconception, however, is the presumption that linear regression of two strongly auto-correlated time series reveals anything about causality. For that purpose we need cross-spectral results that indicate a realizable impulse response function in the characteristic transfer relationship between the two variables.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  richardscourtney
July 1, 2017 12:35 am

“dT should be proportional to 1/C, i.e., decreasing with increasing concentration”
Yes, I pointed that out above. The author claims that a failure to increase invalidates the GHE. Or something. But the whole argument is confounded because he compares dT/dt with CO2. That brings in the time rate of change of both, which takes it away from a state dependence.
“simply high passes the signal, without changing the S/N ratio at all”
It certainly does if, as here, the noise is predominantly HF, and the signal LF.

1sky1
Reply to  richardscourtney
July 1, 2017 4:40 pm

Since CO2 has been rising nearly exponentially (aside from the annual cycle), the AGW bible in effect prescribes a linear relationship between T and concentration C, i.e., a constant rate of change of T over time. While displaying the empirical ROC is certainly not the most incisive way of examining the bible’s accuracy, it doesn’t completely confound the issue. The author is plainly wrong in how he interprets that result.
The notion that “the noise is predominantly HF, and the signal LF” is simply misguided. Although HF fluctuations may not be of great interest here, they are a demonstrable component of the actual temperature signal, rather than some unrelated noise. If anything, the latter tends to be “white” or “red,” rather than “blue,” as signal analysis novices often instinctively assume. While first-differencing of data was certainly not advisable here, it did not, however, change the frequency-dependent S/N ratio as such. It merely de-emphasized the LF components of much greater interest.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  richardscourtney
July 2, 2017 3:55 am

“Since CO2 has been rising nearly exponentially (aside from the annual cycle), the AGW bible in effect prescribes a linear relationship between T and concentration C, i.e., a constant rate of change of T over time.”
It’s true that if temperature were determined by an impulse response type integral operator, exponential growth would imply linearity. I showed that for airborne fraction here. But that isn’t part of the “bible” for temperature. For one thing, GHG’s don’t directly induce temperature change, but rather a heat flux. And the response to the flux is likely to be non-linear, with the effect of water vapor, and the various superimposed oscillations like ENSO.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 2, 2017 10:28 am

I don’t know, Nick, but ever since I began looking into the radiative theory of AGW, I have wondered how much of an impact a very minor increase in CO2 flux could have on the gigantic and dynamic fluxes, on all time and spacial scales, in the climate system. I don’t think there is any form of a steady state of the climate, and assumptions made to facilitate computations would tend mislead one.
The radiative properties of GHGs is proven, and is not a problem with me. How minor differentials in one of the weaker gasses impacts the larger system and lead to significant changes is a different question. A minor flux riding on top of huge second-by-second fluxes would arguably be lost in the noise.

1sky1
Reply to  richardscourtney
July 2, 2017 4:14 pm

Nick Stokes:
In pointing to the putative linear relationship with T prescribed by the AGW bible for exponentially increasing CO2 concentrations, I was merely indicating that the author’s graph is not really confounding the issue at hand. In no way should that be mistaken for any assertion about the actual nature of the climate system.

Hugs
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 29, 2017 12:35 am

So, how clear exactly? There has been warming yes, and the warming is somewhat linearish with smoothing you use. But it is not easy to squeeze out the mathematical strength of the correlation.

billw1984
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 29, 2017 6:37 am

As I recall, “most” means more than half in IPCC jargon.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 29, 2017 7:05 am

Nick
Nice graph.
Please go back to 290 ppm, re-plot and calculate the correlation coefficient. It will only take a couple of minutes.
Thanks
Crispin

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
June 29, 2017 12:22 pm

Crispin,
The MLO record starts in 1958 at 315 ppm. I plotted starting from them. Going back further requires attaching ice core records, which the author here presumably did, but didn’t say so.
The correlation coefficient is 0.856. I don’t think that is a particularly useful statistic, though. It’s unlikely that deviations from linearity are random.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
June 30, 2017 12:34 am

Nick Stokes:
Any data can be processed to make it ‘show’ anything.
Please state why you think it is scientifically appropriate and acceptable to process the data by turning it into “(7 year smoothed)” data and then considering the correlation coefficient of the processed data.
Richard

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
July 1, 2017 12:40 am

Richard,
“Please state why you think it is scientifically appropriate and acceptable to process the data by turning it into “(7 year smoothed)” data and then considering the correlation coefficient of the processed data.”
On smoothing, I am simply following the head post
“Using a simple spreadsheet to calculate these changes, and smoothing them over a 7-year filter[1] so that a cloud of data points can be seen as a trend line”
My purpose is to show what you get when you use the same methods to plot the right thing.
On correlation coefficient, I said that I don’t think it is an appropriate statistic. I calculated it because Crispin asked. But I used the unsmoothed data.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
July 1, 2017 12:54 pm

Nick Stokes:
You objected to a graph in the head post and suggested another graph instead. So, I asked you to justify YOUR graph by asking you;
“Please state why you think it is scientifically appropriate and acceptable to process the data by turning it into “(7 year smoothed)” data and then considering the correlation coefficient of the processed data.”
and you have replied,
“On smoothing, I am simply following the head post”.
But YOU disagreed with the head post and claimed your graph is appropriate.
I asked about YOUR graph.

And when you presented the correlation coefficient you said, “I don’t think that is a particularly useful statistic, though. It’s unlikely that deviations from linearity are random.”
That was NOT – as you now assert – “I said that I don’t think it is an appropriate statistic.”
If you had thought it was inappropriate then the only valid scientific action was to NOT calculate it because in your opinion it is inappropriate.

In summation, your nit-picking point is both illogical and inconsistent.
Richard

Richard
June 28, 2017 4:50 pm

Simple, succinct, to the point.

June 28, 2017 6:05 pm

“What observational evidence can you provide to sustain the allegation that temperature is “very likely” and mostly driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?”
Sorry that’s not the theory.

Gabro
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 28, 2017 6:10 pm

Please state the “theory”, if the conjecture can be so dignified, as you understand it. Thanks.

Stephanie Hawking
June 28, 2017 6:05 pm

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/files/2016/09/Fig.-1.-A-Better-Graph-620×442.png
Look at this — these so-called “scientists” say Earth’s surface is warming!
Of course they expect o find warming with increasing CO2 (and other greenhouses gases like methane). So no surprises they find what they are looking for. Why don’t they look for something else? It could be anything.

Gabro
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 28, 2017 6:14 pm

You post a pack of lies by the misanthropic, mass- and serial-murdering, org@nized cr!minal, raving homicidal lunatic Hansen and expect to be taken seriously?
Hansen has more blood on his hands than Pol Pot, but maybe so far less than H!tler, Stalin, Mao, Hirohito and Rachel Carson. Give the anti-human CACA c@nspir@cy more decades of megadeaths from fossil fuel starvation and titanic theft on a global scale, and he’ll be in the running with the worst of them.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 6:25 pm

I do note however that the slimy weasel has wriggled away from his apocalyptic 2009 prediction of the “Venus Express”.
Hansen wrote in “Storms of My Grandchildren”, Chapter 10, titled “Venus Syndrome”, that:
“I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
Despite his partial recantation, the temperature “data” book cooker hasn’t had the decency to apologize for being an accessory to deaths on the order of ten million and the cost of trillions to tens of trillion in treasure.

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 10:09 pm

Oh I don’t know. Why wouldn’t we switch from fossil fuels to solar and wind if we can? We must run out of finite resources sooner or later in any case.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 28, 2017 10:20 pm

Stephanie,
If we ever switch from fossil fuels to “renewables”, it should be because alternative sources of energy have become economically preferable. But that won’t happen for centuries, if ever.

Bryan A
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 5:58 am

Looks like Stephen Hawking finally got her Transgender Surgery…Congratulations Stephanie

Chris
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 10:19 am

“If we ever switch from fossil fuels to “renewables”, it should be because alternative sources of energy have become economically preferable. But that won’t happen for centuries, if ever.”
What is the basis of your centuries statement?

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 11:03 am

Chris June 29, 2017 at 10:19 am
The economic and environmental costs of “renewables” are so much worse than for fossil fuels now, with no technological breakthrough in the offing, that the rate of progress means no sooner than 200 years. Only fusion holds out the hope of an improvement.
Efficiency in wind-powered electrical production hasn’t grown enough since 1887 yet to outpace coal, so it’s unlikely to do so in the next 130 years, as fossil fuel efficiency also continues to increase. The remaining problems are enormous. Wind still requires coal- or gas-fired backup, is intermittent and not possible everywhere, requiring loss in transmission. Superconductivity might help that.
There might be a breakthrough in solar, but so far it’s still primitive, even given the photoelectric effect, and of course is very limited temporally and geographically.
You just can’t beat fossil fuels for industrial, commercial and large scale residential use. That’s not liable to change in this century or the next, except, as noted, possibly for the still remote prospect of fusion.
Fission could do it, but has been regulated out of competition.
Besides, burning fossil fuels has the added benefit of putting more vital plant nutrient in the air, and maybe even warming it a bit, although that’s highly questionable.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Gabro
June 30, 2017 12:18 am

Stephanie Hawking:
You ask

Oh I don’t know. Why wouldn’t we switch from fossil fuels to solar and wind if we can? We must run out of finite resources sooner or later in any case.

I wonder why you are being so timid. Fossil fuels are part of the Earth and, therefore, the pertinent question is:
Oh I don’t know. Why wouldn’t we switch from the Earth to another planet if we can? We must run out of the Earth’s resources sooner or later in any case.
The two questions are effectively the same question so they have the same answer; viz.
The difficult switch would be expensive to attempt and to achieve and is not needed for the foreseeable future.
Richard

Tom Halla
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 28, 2017 6:16 pm

Stephanie, you have a twofer there==>James Hansen and GISSTEMP. Can you say dubious?

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 28, 2017 10:18 pm
Tom Halla
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 28, 2017 10:24 pm

You forgot a sarc/ tag?

Gabro
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 28, 2017 10:33 pm

Stephanie,
A Brooklyn Bridge buyer is a lot more skeptical than you.

Matt G
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 28, 2017 6:45 pm

This is a GISTEMP version that reflects original data more, but still can’t remove some changes unaccounted for.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/GISS-corrected2_zpssymskhge.png
The warmest early period in the Arctic was actually before the beginning of world war II, unlike the data shown here.

TA
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 6:07 am

Stephanie, here is the UAH satellite global chart
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2017_v6-1.jpg
Please look at this chart and note that the year 1998 is the hottest spot on the chart with the exception of 2016, which is one-tenth of a degree hotter than 1998.
Now look at the Global chart you posted. You should question why the chart you posted so distorts the period from 1998 to the present. It’s profile doesn’t look anything like the satellite chart. You should ask yourself why.
The answer is the chart you posted has been manipulated by dishonest climate scientists to cool the past and make things look like they are getting hotter and hotter every year so as to promote the idea of human-caused global warming.
Any chart you see that does not have 1998 and 2016 within one-tenth of a degree of each other is a bogus, bastardized global surface temperature chart, and should be ignored as being fatally flawed. See Climategate for details about the bastardization.
The reason windmills and solar thermal are not viable is they kill millions of animals and would only be viable if we covered most of the Earth with them.
Nuclear power generation is a much better shortterm solution to our problems. If you insist on Big Solar, go for solar power satellites in orbit. They won’t kill birds and they won’t be a blight on our landscape, like windmills and solar thermal are.
I have no problem with people putting solar panels on their roof. As long as I don’t have to subsidize them with my tax money. Go for it.

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  TA
June 29, 2017 11:10 am

But don’t the satellites measure radiation from oxygen molecules throughout the troposphere, and then so-called “scientists” somehow calculate the temperatures somewhere? (What does version 6 mean? Does it mean this is the sixth time they’ve tried to get it right?) Of course we live on the surface and that’s where the thermometers read the temperatures directly. Isn’t that correct?
Yes, I’ve heard of “climategate”. I thought about six independent investigations cleared the so-called scientists of any wrong-doing. Is that not correct?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 12:27 pm

Stephanie, your ignorance and pettiness is manifest. Objectively thinking people know the details, so I won’t take the time to respond to each of your errors. Such would be wasted anyway because yours is a political, not a scientific position.

Gabro
Reply to  TA
June 29, 2017 11:17 am

Stephanie,
That is not so. No investigation was “independent”.
If Mann has nothing to hide, why did he go to court to protect his UVA emails from the VA AG’s fr@ud and RICO investigation?

TA
Reply to  TA
June 29, 2017 5:44 pm

Stephanie Hawking wrote: “But don’t the satellites measure radiation from oxygen molecules throughout the troposphere, and then so-called “scientists” somehow calculate the temperatures somewhere?”
Yes, it measures throughout the troposphere, including the surface. You appear to be trying to impugn the scientists who manage the satellite records. Any reason for that?
Stephanie wrote: “(What does version 6 mean? Does it mean this is the sixth time they’ve tried to get it right?)”
Yes, they try to fine-tune their data as much as possible. Something wrong with that?
Stephanie wrote: “Of course we live on the surface and that’s where the thermometers read the temperatures directly. Isn’t that correct?”
Yes, that’s correct. You imply that the satellites don’t measure “where we live on the surface”, but that would be incorrect. The satellite measures the surface, too.
Stephanie wrote: “Yes, I’ve heard of “climategate”. I thought about six independent investigations cleared the so-called scientists of any wrong-doing. Is that not correct?”
That’s correct. Around here we call that kind of a “clearing” to be a whitewash. The independent investigations did not change the words of the Climategate crooks, and the Climategate crooks did just what they said they were going to do in the Climategate emails, which was to get rid of the “1940’s heat blip” as they referred to it. Of course, you have demonstrated enough knowledge of the subject to also know that these investigations were not serious, and their only objective was to find no fault. Is that not correct?
The problem you are going to have with this effort of yours to exxonerate the dishonest surface temperature manipulators is we have “before and after” pictures of how the temperature records have been changed over time. And the manipulators don’t have a good explanation for the changes they made.
We can show that Hansen said and showed the 1930’s as being hotter than 1998. We have the charts. We also have the charts after Hansen changed them to erase the 1930’s heat.
In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen showed a Medieval Warm Period, based on temperatures in Greenland, California and England. Now Hansen says there was no Medieval Warm Period. But we have his 1981 chart.
We have Mr. Karl showing the Medieval Warm Period in the 1990 IPCC report, but today Karl says there was no Medieval Warm Period. But we have his 1990 chart.
Prominent climate scientists saying one thing at one time, and saying exactly the opposite later, when it stands to benefit them financially and professionally, is what you are observing here.
Keep asking questions, Stephanie. That’s how we learn.

billw1984
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 6:41 am

Is the argument that the planet is not warming? Few people say that. And if they do, they are wrong.

TA
Reply to  billw1984
June 29, 2017 8:52 am

The 1930’s was hotter than today. We are currently in a temperature downtrend from the 1930’s. The downtrend line has not been broken, even in the 2016 “hottest year evah!” year, although it got fairly close (0.4C below the 1930’s). So, based on that, are we warming or cooling right now?

TA
Reply to  billw1984
June 29, 2017 9:14 am

This is where I get the idea that the 1930’s was hotter than today.
Here is Hansen’s 1999 U.S. surface temperature chart:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/comment image
As you can see the 1930’s is about 0.5C hotter than 1998, and that makes the 1930’s 0.4C hotter than 2016.
And yes, this U.S. temperature chart *does* represent the entire globe, imo. It certainly represents it much better than the bogus, bastardized suface temperature charts we see today.
The link above shows a side-by-side comparison of the 1999 Hansen U.S. chart to the bastardized Global surface temperature chart. As you can see, they have completely different profiles. Hansen wants us to believe that the U.S. profile and the Global profile are completely different. Does that make sense to you?
What we can show is that unmodified temperature charts from places all around the world show a similar profile to the profile of the 1999 U.S. surface temperature chart. That profile being that the 1930’s-40’s shows to be as hot or hotter than any subsequent year. They definitely do NOT resemble the bastardized surface temperature charts.
Upon request those charts can be posted. This venue does not deal well with the posting of multiple links in one post. But if you want them, I have them.

TA
Reply to  billw1984
June 29, 2017 9:26 am

Here’s a example: a surface temperature chart from Finland. As you can see the 1930’s-40’s shows to be hotter than subsequent years. This temperature profile is very close to the 1999 Hansen U.S. temperature chart profile, and does NOT resemble the bastardized Global surface temperature “Hockey Stick” chart.comment image

Mat
Reply to  billw1984
June 29, 2017 9:36 am

TA, the United States makes up less than 2% of the area of the globe.
U.S. temperature chart *does not* represent the entire globe, your opinion doesn’t come into it.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Mat
June 29, 2017 9:47 am

The “the US is 2% of the earth” theme was used by Schmidt and friends to justify pulling temperatures out of their backsides, excuse me, “making corrections”. Actual temperature records, not infill and interpolation, follow the US records more closely than does the GISSTEMP exercise in creative writing.

Dave Fair
Reply to  billw1984
June 29, 2017 12:30 pm

Is warming? No proof of that; only speculation. The best we can do is say some minor warming from the Little Ice Age.

Gabro
Reply to  billw1984
June 29, 2017 5:50 pm

The planet is colder than it was 5000, 3000, 2000 and 1000 years ago. It is warmer than it was 320 years ago and 160 years ago. It might not be warmer than it was 80 years ago. The best data available is from the US, and it has historically matched global fluctuations, so it’s quite probable that the whole world was warmer in the 1930s than now. Sea ice was similar, so SSTs must also have been similar to now.

TA
Reply to  billw1984
June 29, 2017 6:01 pm

Mat wrote: “TA, the United States makes up less than 2% of the area of the globe.”
Irrelevant. See below.
Mat wrote: “U.S. temperature chart *does not* represent the entire globe, your opinion doesn’t come into it.”
The U.S. temperature chart *profile* does represent the entire globe because you find similar temperature profiles around the world and in both hemispheres.
See my post of the chart from Finland. It’s profile resembles the Hansen 1999 U.S. surface temperature chart profile. It has the 1930’s-40’s as being hotter than subsequent years. It most certainly does NOT resemble the bastardized Hockey Stick global surface temperature profile which has disappeared the 1930’s heat.
I have lots of charts from around the world that show that very same profile resembling the 1999 Hansen U.S. surface temperature chart.
The bastardized Global Hockey Stick chart is a fatally flawed invention of dishonest climate scientists. A very few climate scientists, to be sure, but their dishonest impact has been profound and very bad.
They are slowly being exposed.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 7:14 am

Stephanie
I love your graph! If you update it you can show us that the anomaly is already back down to the 1980 level. Won’t that look great? It will be Mount Everest of Temperature Anomalies!
It is unfortunate that you are using an adapted/adjusted temperature set underlying the anomaly. If you used the original temperatures 1938-1940 would be almost equal to the peak at the El Nino on the right.
Can anyone else post a chart that has the actual temperatures converted to an anomaly? And go from say, 1880 to 2017. That will create two mountains.

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
June 29, 2017 11:13 am

Well I’d say in a year or three we might know more. Certainly by 2030. Thirteen might be an unlucky number for some…

Gabro
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
June 29, 2017 11:48 am

No need to wait until 2030.
The CACA conjecture was already shown false long ago, when, for 32 years after WWII, global average temperature plummeted while CO2 rose steadily. Then for about 20 years, still rising CO2 happened accidentally to coincide with naturally increasing temperature, following the PDO flip of 1977. But for the subsequent ~20 years, despite CO2 rising even more rapidly, temperature stayed flat, at best, but for natural El Nino spikes.
CACA was born falsified, since Arrhenius and Callendar’s predictions in the first half of the last century were shown false by the frigid ’40s to ’70s.

Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
July 1, 2017 11:56 am

Hawker:
Your chart should change to satellite data in 1979.
Phony “adjustments” to historical surface data BEFORE the year 2000,
made in the years AFTER 1999,
have already DOUBLED the warming (from 1880 to 1999) reported today,
compared with the 1880 to 1999 warming that HAD BEEN reported
by the goobermint back in 1999.
Satellite temperature data are confirmed by weather balloon radiosondes
— surface data are NOT confirmed by anyone.
A majority of surface data is wild guesses
— no real data available for over
half the grids forming earth’s surface
In addition, your chart is “CONVENIENTLY” truncated
at the 2015 / 2016 El Nino temperature peak
— the average temperature has since declined
from 0.5 to 1.5 degrees C. from the peak,
depending on which data source is chosen,
… not shown on the chart.
Sorry, I know all this analysis is way over your head !
Measurements in the 1800s are severely contaminated
by thermometers that tended to read low,
and almost no measurements in the Southern Hemisphere
are included in the so-called “global” average!
Pre-1940 sea surface measurements are mainly from
buckets of seawater in shipping lanes — a comical measurement methodology l
ikely to have HUGE errors.
Hawker, you are a climate change parrot
— you repeat whatever the government bureaucrats
and politicians of your party tell you to think,
while knowing almost nothing about the temperature data
you cut and paste.
How sad!

Deaan Caldwell
June 28, 2017 7:18 pm

Mr. MdR’s graph is unsupportable as it is presented. The Y axis is a ‘rate of change’ in months, but where is the month scale? The PPM scale seems to be linear, but to what? Time? The red line begins in 1979 and ends when? A for selecting a smoothing unit, try one that is not a multiple of the solar, PDO or MDO.
This, like so many two factor graphs of complex systems sheds more darkness than dimness. A typical 15 second sound bite.

observa
June 28, 2017 7:27 pm

The doomsayers say the evidence they have is based on these proxy variables in the absence of the invention of the thermometer- https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/what-are-proxy-data
But there’s an obvious overarching proxy for temperature rise that rules them all and that’s sea level rise whereby the oceans expand thermally or due to ice melt adding to them. So what’s the evidence of that in my neck of the woods, the Southern Hemisphere?
CSIRO report the tide gauge at Port Arthur in Tasmania shows 13.5cm from 1841 to 2000 or an average rise of 0.85mm/yr for a century and a half recently but I have a much older tide gauge than that at Hallett Cove a southern suburb of my home town of Adelaide South Australia. That geology can show an average annual rise of 16.25mm/yr for 8000 years from around 15000 to 7000 years ago.
Are there any scientists who would profess that aboriginal cooking fires and traditional burnoffs to flush out game could produce 19 times the warming that our modern industrial society does due to CO2? Have I got my proxy variable for temperature wrong? Are they denying that proven science? How could a geologist like Ian Plimer possibly believe in anything else? The answer is no more than I can and these doomsayers are not scientists at all but witch doctors chanting and rattling bones with their proxies.
Harmless enough snake oil merchants if they weren’t prescribing the application of ever more leeches to their patients already bleeding copiously-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australia-will-have-highest-power-prices-in-the-world-after-july-1-increases/news-story/876f9f6cefce23c62395085c6fe0fd9f

observa
June 28, 2017 7:46 pm

Not to mention that these are the same towering intellects that continue to believe they can disprove a fundamental axiom of engineering that you cannot build a reliable system from unreliable componentry-
http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2017/june
Flinging open the doors of our sandstones to weak minds as the power of computers was exploding exponentially has been a recipe for disaster for Western civilisation is my only conclusion from all of this.

Rex Wellington
June 28, 2017 10:00 pm

The correlation between CO2 levels and MEAN temperatures is poor. Full stop.

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  Rex Wellington
June 28, 2017 10:15 pm

Is it possible some heat retained via the greenhouse effect is taking a long time to show itself as an increase in temperature? I’m thinking of the oceans, which would take a lot of heat to warm.

Gabro
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 28, 2017 10:23 pm

The atmosphere doesn’t warm the oceans, contrary to CACA “theory”.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 28, 2017 11:50 pm

“ Why wouldn’t we switch from fossil fuels to solar and wind if we can? We must run out of finite resources sooner or later in any case …”
==========================
Who’s “we”? Are you royalty?
There is no reason, you can do it right now — what’s stopping you?

David A
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 3:14 am

No, the IPCC predicted ESTIMATE is for the atmosphere, first the troposphere, 20% more then the surface must occur first. It HAS NOT, PERIOD, END OF STORY.

Chris
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 10:22 am

“Who’s “we”? Are you royalty?
There is no reason, you can do it right now — what’s stopping you?’
Good grief, it’s a discussion point, not a statement of personal obligation or commitment. I pity people that go through life looking for arguments.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 11:46 pm

What would Stephen Hawking, a “so-called scientist”, know about radiation? Couldn’t spot a hokes if it came out of his black hole.

Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
July 1, 2017 12:13 pm

There is no evidence outside of laboratory experiments, that may not apply to real life on Earth, to claim there would be any measurable warming from increasing CO2 levels above 400 ppm.
The average temperature measurements in the past century show warming in the first half of the century claimed to be “natural”, by everyone, and very similar warming in the second half of the century, claimed to be caused by man made CO2, by some people.
If you believe that, and I think you do, that means you believe 4.5 billion years of natural climate change suddenly stopped in the middle of the 20th century, and man made CO2 took over as the “climate controller”, with no explanation of how, or why, that could have happened.
I’d like to think people are not stupid enough to believe in a sudden change in the cause of climate change, but apparently there are many stupid people who believe what they are told, and repeat it like a parrot.
You appear to be one of them.
If the laboratory experiments do apply to Earth, then an increase of 2ppm CO2 per year (current rate) will lead to about +1 degree C. average temperature increase in 200 years, and the increase would be mainly at night, in cold, dry climates = very good news if it actually happened!
The claim of runaway warming from CO2 increases is complete nonsense — CO2 levels were higher than today for most of Earth’s history with no evidence of runaway warming — runaway warming is a comical left-wing boogeyman used to scare and control people … like you.
The ice core proxies clearly show temperature change leads CO2 changes by hundreds of years.
The following article includes many links to studies that support my above statement:
The studies are probably way over your head, but you might ask someone to read one to you.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/22/new-paper-geothermal-heat-a-leading-driver-of-surface-temperatures/#sthash.UIAKipf7.9cMLEm5r.dpbs

June 29, 2017 12:43 am

This is the only graph I have ever seen of CO2 versus a temperature metric to directly correlate these presumed dependent variables. However, they do not make a trend, they make a set of data points to be fit to a line. Since this line is going to be horizontal, such a line defines that there is no correlation. A least square fit and correlation coefficient should have been generated from it.

June 29, 2017 2:12 am

On the rate of Warming vs CO2 it would be interesting to see marked major volcanic eruptions, El Ninos/La Ninas and the introductions of clean air acts and chinese industrialisation. Also a rolling average of the data so we can see if on average warming is accelerating.

Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 2:59 am

Such a lot of new ideas on this site. “We” can’t mean us, humans, humanity. It means the royal “me”. So. Humans won’t switch from fossil fuels for hundreds of years, if ever. No possibility of running short then? Downwelling longwave radiation doesn’t heat the oceans. I’m not sure why, but no doubt there’ll be a fantastic explanation forthcoming. Learning is one of the great experiences of life.

David A
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 3:27 am

No, we have abundant fossil fuels for two hundred plus years. However we have abundant nuclear fuel for many thousands of years, and the technology to use the fuel we now consider waste.
Per the oceans I already explained above. CAGW theory demands the warming START in the troposphere where it is MIA, therefore whatever surface warming we have had is not from CO2.
Also regarding ocean heating, SW radiation penetrates up to 800 feet below the surface, thus has a residence time and potential accumalation of days, years, decades and centuries.
On the otherhand, LWIR is 100% absorbed in the first few microns of the ocean skin, and simply accelerates the water cycle, using its energy in evaporation, increased conduction, increased reduction of energy at elevation to space, and reduction of SW insolation into the oceans.

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  David A
June 29, 2017 9:18 am

Yes, DSR warms the ocean. But you don’t think that DLR would slow the surface cooling?

Bryan A
Reply to  David A
June 29, 2017 4:08 pm

Insulation around a water heater works to prevent heat loss due to density. Problem is, to have the same density factor for a water heater insulator in the atmosphere would take a CO2 concentration of over 40,000 ppm. At 400 ppm the effect is roughly equivalent to encasing your water heater in tissue paper approximately twice the thickness of a human hair

David A
Reply to  David A
June 30, 2017 3:49 am

It is not a question of can LWIR slow the surface cooling. The much better question is “How much does x quantity of LWIR warm the surface vs am equal quantity of SW radiation.
As energy is eternal amything in a radiative balance can only change its energy one of two ways, by a change in input, or a xhange in residence time of energy in the system. The residence time of LWIR being 100% absorbed at the ocean skin surface, phase changed into WV, and carrying that energy via convection to altitude where it can now radiate to space, while simultaneously BLOCKING vastly longer residence time SW radiation fron reaching the oceans means it has much less then 1% of the warming potential of an equal amount ( watts per sq M) of SW radiation.
The truth is EVERY WL of incoming insolation must be evalulated based on the residence time of said WL of insolation. Not all photons are equal.

gymnosperm
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 9:27 am

Fantastic explanation to order: IR radiation in the CO2 active bands can penetrate the ocean surface far less than the thickness of a human hair. In the rare instances where the atmosphere is warmer than the ocean and the downwelling IR can “stick”, the warmed water is at the top of the column, and has a very strong tendency to STAY at the top.
Thus, the situation quickly reverts to normal where the ocean is warmer than the atmosphere, and net energy transfer is from the ocean to the atmosphere.
The lower panel below (Singh et al 2006) shows sensible heat flux, the kind thermometers measure, from the ocean to the atmosphere. Only the brightest white areas of the ocean receive energy from the atmosphere.comment image

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  gymnosperm
June 29, 2017 9:30 am

How does insulation around a hot water cylinder work? Just a thought.

gymnosperm
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
July 3, 2017 6:52 am

It works by interfering with convection in the surrounding air.

Bryan A
Reply to  gymnosperm
June 29, 2017 7:51 pm

Insulation around a water heater works to prevent heat loss due to density. Problem is, to have the same density factor for a water heater insulator in the atmosphere would take a CO2 concentration of over 40,000 ppm. At 400 ppm the effect is roughly equivalent to encasing your water heater in tissue paper approximately twice the thickness of a human hair

Michael darby
Reply to  gymnosperm
June 29, 2017 8:03 pm

The density of “insulation” in a Dewar flask is ZERO

Bryan A
Reply to  gymnosperm
June 29, 2017 8:53 pm

That is because a Dewar Flask insulates with a vaccuum

Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
July 1, 2017 12:28 pm

The longer you study a subject,
the more you realize you do not know yet.
Much of what you learn in life is that
there are many things you previously “learned”
that were not true.
This site does not have “new” ideas.
It has old, proven ideas, and great skepticism, formerly called “science”.
No wild guess computer games predicting a climate catastrophe 30 years in a row here
… they are not real MODELS after 30 years of WRONG predictions — they are computer games
The so-calleed models are merely complex versions of the personal opinions of the people who programmed them (goobermint bureaucrat (non)scientists who would lose their jobs if they ever
opined that their models might have made wrong predictions 30 years in a row
because CO2 does NOT control the climate … just like in the past 4.5 billion years)
This site also has common sense.
— When people predict the future climate, or future anything else,
some of us have enough wisdom to know they are very likely to be wrong,
especially when no one even knows what causes climate change!
When a politician predicts a coming catastrophe
unless everyone does as he says,
we know that’s an old strategy to gain power,
whether the boogeyman is “communists”,
“weapons of mass destruction”
or runaway global warming.

June 29, 2017 3:44 am

Well, I have learned 2 things reading this thread.
1) Several people here seem to think that wet sidewalks cause it to rain.
My favorite example of the stupidity of thinking that if two variables both rise over time then one causes the other comes from the 70s which was a period of very high inflation. Both the salaries of kindergarten teachers and the price of whiskey were rising rapidly. So, obviously, the kindergarten teachers where drinking much more and causing the rise of whiskey prices!
2) Many people here think that CO2 can make the temperature go up on this planet.
In spite of all data showing that temperatures go up first and then after a lag we see CO2 go up — regardless of that — people still believe CO2 causes the earth to warm. As someone now banned from this site used to say; they believe cold things can heat up hot things. (I knew in the 70s that taking thermodynamics would someday cause me to be out of step with the modern world)
The CO2 delusion has to be the biggest delusion in history. (yes, I know that is a very high bar)

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  markstoval
June 29, 2017 9:22 am

I thought laboratory and other experiment showed CO2 absorbed and re-emitted LWR? Following on from work by Arrhenius in 1896 or thereabouts. And someone checked this out in the atmosphere? Feldman?

Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 12:46 pm

Nothing you have written on this thread shows any indication that you have thought about these issues at all. I really don’t care that you wallow in ignorance. (the handle is a dead give-away)

Bryan A
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 4:10 pm

Formerly Stephen Hawking

Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
July 1, 2017 12:57 pm

The laboratory experiments are not conclusive,
but suggest mild warming from CO2.
A + 1 degree average temperature increase in 200 years
with CO2 rising 2ppm per year = ho hum!
(assuming people are still burning coal and other fossil fuels the whole time)
In real life there is mining and extraction of fossil fuels.
In real life there is refining of oil into gasoline and other fuels.
Then the fuels are burned, adding MANY chemicals into the air, not only CO2,
including soot that blocks sunlight in cities … and also falls on the ice and snow in the Arctic,
where the darker snow and ice then absorbs more solar energy than pristine snow and ice would
… and that might explain why there has been so much warming in the Arctic
… and almost no Antarctica warming (something that would NOT happen with
greenhouse warming)
In addition, there are known man made changes to the average temperature:
Measurement errors, inadvertent or deliberate:
— 1800’s thermometers tended to read low (exaggerating the warming since then),
— Heating effects of economic growth near surface thermometers
— Repeated arbitrary “adjustments” to the historical data increasing warming,
— Wild guess data used for grids where no real data were available (majority of earth’s surface),
easily biased by bureaucrats who predicted, and want to see, more global warming, and
— A change of sea temperature measurement methodology caused a one-time temperature increase
All of this adds up to MANY possible causes of measured climate change
(and some we may not yet know about) — some natural, and others man made.
No one has any idea what causes climate change in any meaningful detail.
No one knows what a “normal” average temperature is.
No one can honestly claim that the average temperature trend
in the past 150 years has been unusual, much less “bad”, or “dangerous”.
The warming since 1880 has been mild — possibly just measurement errors.
Unlike the expected continuous “global” warming,
affecting both poles the most,
along with a “hot spot” six miles up over the tropics,
that would be a signature of greenhouse warming.
here is what we have actually had:
— Many decades with no warming (such as early 2000s to 2015),
or cooling (1940 to 1975),
— The northern half of the Northern Hemisphere has had much more warming
than the southern half of the Southern Hemisphere.
— No tropical “hot spot” ever found.
We are still told CO2 controls the climate, yet:
1940 to 1975 — CO2 up, average temperature down (negative correlation)
1975 to early 2000s — CO2 up, temperature up (positive correlation)
early 2000s to 2015 — CO2 up, temperature flat (no correlation)
Anyone who thinks, or says, climate science is settled, is an idiot.
And there are a lot of climate idiots out there,
including Al “The Blimp” Gore!

Reply to  markstoval
June 29, 2017 3:22 pm

Markstoval,
A little over the top…
That two variables go up over time may be because they:
1. are uncorrelated and it is just coincidence
2. are both driven by a common cause
3. influence each other.
In the case of CO2 there is (at least theoretical) evidence for 3., even in both directions.
In spite of all data showing that temperatures go up first
Which is evidently false: CO2 follows temperature at all time scales from seasonal to multi-millennia, but you have zero evidence that any natural process caused the 110 ppmv increase over the past 165 years, which obviously leads temperature as the current CO2 levels in the atmosphere should be ~290 ppmv for the current average ocean surface temperature per Henry’s law…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 29, 2017 4:05 pm

Ferdinand,
No, you are incorrect in that assertion. At the end of the Little Ice Age around 1870 temperatures started to rise. There was no man-made CO2 being released then. As far as we know there was no increase in CO2 due to any cause. Temperatures went up, and then later on so did CO2. (a lag)
I will agree that there are factors that cause temperatures to rise first and then that causes CO2 to go up. That would be more #2 than #3 though.
CO2, on net, may have a cooling effect but it does not warm the planet. Someday mankind will realize that.
See: US Standard Atmosphere for much better way to look at the problem.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 29, 2017 4:14 pm

” around 1870 temperatures started to rise. There was no man-made CO2 being released then.”

James Watt patented the steam engine in 1781.
..
“deep shaft mining in the UK began to develop extensively in the late 18th century” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining#Pre_1900

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
July 1, 2017 1:31 pm

Engleburn:
Please add
4 Measurement error(s)
5 Some combination of (1), (2), (3) and (4)
Underseas volcanoes add CO2 of unknown quantities.
CO2 measurement methodology changed in 1960 from a questionable
accuracy ice core proxy to good accuracy real time measurements,
with Michael Mann style data splicing of both data sets.
There were 80,000 real time CO2 chemical measurements pre-1960
— has anyone tried to replicate ANY of the old measurements to see the CO2
changes over time using the SAME measurement methodology?
I know the old measurement locations were generally too close to CO2 sources,
but they are real time data — perhaps a few local measurements could be replicated,
even if the locations are not at all useful to determine a global average.
I have concern with such great trust of proxy data for CO2
Especially when some people claim ice cores are the perfect proxy for CO2 measurements …
while average temperature estimates from the same ice cores are worthless?
That doesn’t make sense.
Nor does your claim that exactly 290 ppm would be the natural CO2 level — not because Henry’s law is over 200 years old, but because accurate sea surface temperature measurements are difficult, if not impossible — given all the different SST measurement methodologies that have been used .. compiled with each other … with unknown margins of error.
I think it would be more accurate to merely state
that roughly one quarter of the CO2 in the air
is likely to have come from humans burning fossil fuels
— is “290 ppm” false precision?
My current dream is doubling the CO2 level and further greening the Earth.
I’m confident tripling the CO2 level would be even better for green plants.
It’s hard to imagine something that benefits green plants
would harm humans and animals

Stephen Skinner
June 29, 2017 4:14 am

“So, what? The suspect was there while the victim developed fever,”
No, the victim came out of hypothermia.

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
June 29, 2017 9:28 am

I think the silly idea the so-called “scientists” promote is that CO2 is the forcing and the warming releases more CO2 – outgassing from the oceans, which the acts as a feedback. So CO2 is a forcing and a feedback. Or something like that.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 11:25 am

Indeed, but what I meant was temperatures have returned to a normal from a cold period (mini ice age) as opposed to warming above supposed normal temps. A fever is above average while hypothermia is below average.

Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
July 1, 2017 1:40 pm

The silly idea is that anyone with sense
could “stick his or her head out a window”
and realize the climate in 2017 is wonderful .
If you lived in the same place for many decades
you might have noticed nighttime lows are not quite as
cold as in the 1970s and 1980s —
there is no bad news from climate change
except in the warped minds of some people who are never happy
— satellites even show the earth is greening from more CO2
— some brown areas are now green
— so our plants are happier too
— along with the people and animals who eat them !
The silly idea is that the harmless plant food CO2 is really an evil satanic gas ….
… but gross air, water and land pollution in China and India don’t matter
… even though there is so much air pollution
in China that some eventually reaches our own left coast
(California, Oregon and Washington) .
But I guess that doesn’t matter?

Ed
June 29, 2017 8:03 am

The big question every one avoids is how is it the Vikings were farming in Greenland in an area today that still will not support this endeavour? Granted this was a short time period but it does show us that natural fluctuations are extreme and we simply do not have the data to “prove” conclusively. Unless perhaps this was the result of their extreme flatulence….not to mention one volcano can produce more CO2 than humans can in years

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  Ed
June 29, 2017 9:24 am

Oh I got that wrong too. I thought CO2 from human activity was a hundred times that from volcanoes.

Chris
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 10:23 am

You are correct, Ed is wrong.

Gabro
Reply to  Ed
June 29, 2017 10:49 am

Norse dairy farming in Greenland lasted more than 400 years.
Actually, we don’t know human v. volcanic sources of CO2, since most volcanoes are underwater and haven’t even been discovered.

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 11:17 am

Well simple calculations show human activity accounts for more than enough CO2 to raise the level 40% from 280 at industrialisation to >400 now. I think I read somewhere that so-called “scientists” showed isotope studies found the carbon was from fossil fuels.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 11:29 am

Isotope studies aren’t dispositive because there are other sources of 13C than human activity.
So there is not “more than enough” to show that the whole alleged increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is due to humans. Most of it however probably is. Science just can’t say with any precision how much.
Note that in the unusually warm, super El Nino year of 2016, CO2 increased by about four ppm rather than the usual lately two ppm. This suggests that perhaps only half of the observed increase is from human activity and much of the rest from outgassing from oceans warmer now on balance than they were in AD 1850, at the end of the LIA.
But in any case, your comment wasn’t responsive to the issue of comparing man-made to volcanic sources of CO2. The amount of emissions by humans can be estimated with acceptable precision. From volcanic sources, not so much, since we don’t even know how many there are.

Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 3:56 pm

Gabro,
Near all inorganic CO2 has a 13C/12C ratio of around zero per mil (a standard originally based on some carbonate rock). That is the case for (deep) oceans, most carbonate deposits, volcanoes,…
Near all organic CO2 has a 13C/12C ratio of (far) below zero per mil, thus containing less 13C in ratio to 12C. That ranges between -24 per mil (vegetation, average fossil fuels) and -40 per mil (natural gas) and below.
The atmosphere is in between at currently -8 per mil and rapidly dropping thanks to fossil fuel burning.
The only alternative would be that a lot of forest are burning down lately (near half of all forests on earth!), but as the oxygen balance – and satellites did show: vegetation is currently a growing sink for CO2, not a source, the earth is greening…
In 2016, human emissions were at around 4.5 ppmv, increase in the atmosphere around 3 ppmv. Still nature was a net sink for ~1.5 ppmv CO2, despite the increased temperature… That is the case for every year since 1960, thus it looks like that near all CO2 increase is man-made…
Some of the largest volcanoes and volcanic fields are monitored and what they spew is measured by measuring the CO2/SO2 ratio in the plumes and SO2 in the surroundings, as that is much easier to monitor without other interfering sinks/sources. Here for mount Etna, one of the largest continuous CO2 emitters on earth:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6325/abs/351387a0.html
Extrapolated to all known large to small surface volcanic systems together, that gives less than 1% of human emissions per year…
Even the Pinatubo, one of a magnitude larger than all other volcanoes together, caused a drop in the CO2 rate of change, partly by lowering temperatures, partly by enhancing photosynthesis due to scattered sunlight…
Underwater volcanoes play little role: as long as the gases don’t reach the atmosphere, these are dissolved in the enormous mass of CO2 derivatives already present in the deep oceans…

Neo
June 29, 2017 9:11 am

If you like your climate, you can keep your climate.
I’ve heard something like this before … and was left disappointed.

Mat
June 29, 2017 9:46 am

Michel de Rougemont, this is quite a wild straw man. You are plotting rate of temperature increase against absolute CO2 concentration to hide correlation. Why?
Imagine any other two variables that depend on each other (beer and blood-alcohol?) and you will see where you’ve gone wrong. To get more drunk, is it necessary to drink the beer faster and faster?

June 29, 2017 10:11 am

IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties.
Self explanatory.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
June 29, 2017 12:20 pm

Nicholas, I keep a hard copy of TS.6 for true believers to get mad about when I point it out. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind because climate is a political issue. It is fun, though, watching the fireworks.

Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 11:22 am

Gabro. Do you think all the investigations into “climategate” were rigged. I know Prof Michael Kelly FRS was involved in one investigation, and he doesn’t think we need do anything about so-called “global warming”. So why didn’t he find the cheating you talk about? Maybe he’s not very bright – he’s at Cambridge University.

Gabro
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 11:34 am

Academic and government bureaucrats cover each other’s ar$es. It’s as simple as that.
Regardless of their opinions about “climate change”, the Old Boys’ Club will stick together to keep the trough taps of government-funded “science” going.

Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
July 1, 2017 1:59 pm

There is absolutely no doubt that goobermint bureaucrat computer gamers
and other so-called “scientists” have predicted the future temperature,
and they also own the actuals for the historical temperature,
which they have repeatedly “adjusted” so the historical surface temperatures
now show double the warming they showed in 1999 … in spite of the fact that
the average temperature barely changed since the early 2000s.
The Michael Mann (probably your hero) hockey stick chart spliced two completely different sources of temperature data (a proxy not useful for temperature data, but never mind that) and he did not show the overlap where the proxy data showed cooling, and the real time measurements showed warming.
He truncated ONLY the proxy data that contradicted his intended “propaganda”, and we skeptics found out, and his chart went from the highlight of the next IPCC report … to never being mentioned again!
Al “The Blimp” Gore probably still uses the chart, but he’s the Bozo the Clown of climate science (which is mainly politics..
“Climate scientists” investigating fellow “climate scientists” … and you see no conflict of interest problem?
How about Mike Pense “investigating” Donald Trump?
How about Loretta Lynch “investigating” Hillary Clinton?
Try to get a doctor in your state to testify in a malpractice suit
against any other doctor in your state!
Oh my … a dishonest “investigation” is very possible.
But we don’t need no stinkin’ investigation …
How about YOU actually READING some of the ClimateGate emails by yourself
and stop parroting what people of your political party tell you to think about them?
I know that independent thought is difficult for members of the leftist borg
— but we libertarians
prefer investigating ourselves,
not parroting like you!

Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 11:28 am

I don’t know much. How I envy the experts on here, they seem so sure their opinions are correct.
And there’s the corundum: Nearly every working and publishing climate scientist on the planet accepts human activity is causing global warming via the greenhouse effect. So what are the experts on here expert in?

Gabro
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 11:33 am

You are sorely mistaken. The best, senior climatologists and atmospheric and oceanic physicists and chemists are skeptics. So-called “climate scientists” are rent-seeking computer gamers and mathematicians, and not very good ones.
Besides which, you’ve committed the fallacy of argument from authority. Just the facts matter, not the initials behind a person’s name. Need I yet again post Dr. Feynman’s lecture on the scientific method?

Stephanie Hawking
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 12:19 pm

The argument from authority is not a formal fallacy. Generally it means searching until you find an opinion that suits your purpose. Often just one self-anointed expert, who disagrees with other experts – that’s why he is chosen. Lawyers do this to throw doubt on the evidence and bamboozle juries.
What is important in science is the balance of informed opinion. Scientists work and collect evidence, and offer explanations. That is evaluated by other experts. Eventually a consensus may form, which offers us the best view of reality. For non-experts to defer to what the experts have decided is not an appeal to authority. It is what rational people do.
Richard Feynman knew about the greenhouse effect and greenhouses gases. There is no evidence he disagreed that more CO2 would cause Earth to retain more energy.
What is the scientific method? Is it defined in a book, like a bible? Isn’t it what the global community of scientists, as represented by the Royal Society, National Academy of Scientists, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society etc etc etc decide? That’s what my dad says anyway. He knows a bit about physics.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 12:24 pm

Really? Appeal to authority is old (argumentum ad verecundiam [sp?]). It amounts to quoting Doctor Whoosis as dispositive, and not using Woosis’ actual arguments or facts.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 1:07 pm

Additionally, Gabro, the “data” other climate scientists use to predict wrack and ruin come from wildly varying interpretations of IPCC climate model outputs. RCP 8.5 (the misnamed “business as usual” scenario) comes from demented imaginations of a dystopian world with out-of-control population, extreme poverty, widespread environmental degradation and other unlikely outcomes.
Also, IPCC AR5 had to reduce midterm model “projections” because the internal workings of the models egregiously manipulated real world physics so as to greatly overstate likely warming.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 1:16 pm

No, Stepanie, the “balance of informed opinion” means absolutely nothing in science. It is almost always wrong. The whole point of the scientific method is to challenge consensus.
All that matters is whether your hypothesis can make testable predictions capable of being shown false, and that your results are repeatable. Thus you need to make all your work available, instead of trying to hide it, like Jones of HadCRU.
Feynman: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
CACA is thus anti-scientific.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 1:49 pm

One of the problems with today’s climate meme is that the theory was developed during a a short period of general warming, Gabro. It caught on and all the late 20th century data seemed to support it. A bunch of the world’s politicians, NGOs and various rent-seekers jumped on the band wagon as it fit their power and money needs. I know; as a renewables developer I was an ardent supporter of portfolio standards, mandates, must-take and the like when lobbying politicians.
Come the 21st Century and early skeptics started picking at the foundations. Since CAGW had become “revealed truth,” the backlash was overwhelming. Everything contrary was denied. Reputations and careers were destroyed.
Now, through the 21st Century, contrary evidence keeps piling up. Alas, the beneficiaries of the meme continue to fight tooth and nail. As portions of the dogma are proven false, ideologues deny all proof and search for ways to ostracize “deniers.” Weird “studies” are made to show the emperor does have clothes.
This will continue until temperatures in the 2020’s reveal some sort of a denouement. One way or the other or something else.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 1:19 pm

Actually Stephanie, Feynman’s sister is a CACA-skeptic scientist. As is his former colleague Freeman Dyson, academic heir to Einstein.
The scientific method doesn’t have a Bible. It’s a process, well understood since at least AD 1543. To the extent that it’s codified, please see Karl Popper.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 1:21 pm

And his prominent physics colleagues Will Happer, like Dyson, also at Princeton, Richard Lindzen of MIT and Nobel Laureate Ivor Giaever, among numerous others.
But they are real scientists, unlike Hansen, Schmidt and Mann, who aren’t climatologists, as were genuine scientists Bill Grey, the Father of Hurricanology and Reid Bryson, the Father of Climatology.

Bryan A
Reply to  Gabro
June 29, 2017 8:04 pm

Hanson, Schmidt, and Mann are more like Climastrologists than climatologists with failed prediction after failed prediction
As to

Richard Feynman knew about the greenhouse effect and greenhouses gases. There is no evidence he disagreed that more CO2 would cause Earth to retain more energy

There is also no evidence that he thought that additional energy retained by the Earth would be detrimental or catastrophic

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 30, 2017 10:30 am

There is every reason to believe that Richard Feynman would have been a skeptic, like his astrophysicist sister:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Feynman
Any real scientist has to be a CACA skeptic, since there is no evidence in favor of the CACA hypothesis and all the evidence in the world against it.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 30, 2017 10:48 am

Just a few examples showing that in every century, the “balance of expert opinion”, ie consensus, has always been wrong:
In the 16th century, the consensus was that Earth lies at rest at the center of the “universe”, while the sun and planets orbit it in perfect circles. The consensus was also that the moon was more perfect than the Earth, that larger objects fell faster than smaller ones and “unnatural” motion required a push, while “natural” motion resulted from an object seeking its natural place.
In the 17th century, the consensus was that fossils formed in rock accidentally to look like parts of living things, or that they fell from the sky, that Earth was created in 4004 BC and a global flood later covered the highest mountains.
In the 18th century, the consensus was that pholgiston was responsible for combustion, and species couldn’t go extinct because of the Great Chain of Being, in which every link was made perfect by God.
In the 19th century, the consensus was that there could not have been ice ages, that species are immutable, each created individually by God, that disease is caused by the humors or miasmas and that space and time are absolute, while gravity acts instantaneously at a distance.
In the 20th century, the consensus was that the continents are fixed, so can’t “drift”, that outbreak floods from ice-dammed lakes didn’t make the channeled scablands of the Pacific NW and that ulcers aren’t caused by bacteria.
Science exists to show the consensus false.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 30, 2017 10:51 am

Also in the last century, the consensus first was that the universe was stable, then that it was expanding, then, at its end, that the expansion was accelerating.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
June 30, 2017 11:05 am

Note that the history of science shows the gradual realization that everything changes, the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, other celestial bodies, climate, species and atoms, which can even change into each other.
This is contrary to the consensus on the universe and everything within it, except weather, at the dawn of the scientific revolution. Both the biblical and pagan scientific universe were considered stable and perfect, although in pagan science there were dissenting voices, and in the Bible, God could visit calamities upon those who ticked Him off.

Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
July 1, 2017 2:10 pm

I do complement you, Hawker, on your true statement “I don’t know much.”
You are in even worse condition than that — you “know” many things that are not true!
In fact, it is your leftist “team” that are the so called “experts”.
That STARTED with the conclusion that burning fossil fuels will cause runaway warming
and end all life on our planet. Then they work backwards — and after 30 years of work,
they defend their beliefs with the following “scientific” conclusion:
“Because we say so”
Your argument by authority doesn’t impress us.
I bet you even believe there is a 97% consensus.
Only fools believe that after many honest analyses refuted the number.
I feel sorry for you because you can only parrot what you are told.
We can believe that humans have some effect on the planet,
and even believe that CO2 causes some warming,
WITHOUT jumping to the idiotic conclusion
that CO2 is the “climate controller”
and will cause runaway global warming that will end all life.
It doesn’t matter if 100% of scientists believe in runaway warming
— that doesn’t make it correct.
These are wild guess predictions of the future climate
by people who have not even demonstrated the ability to predict next year.
I can’t wait for your next comment:
Save time — just post:
“I’m dumb on the subject of climate science,
and here is what I believe in”

richard
June 29, 2017 12:08 pm

Came across this at the independent, thought i would share the fun-
“As a scientist I have to comment on this. Climate Change is not the most pressing issue facing the human race. In fact, the more urgent matter is erosion. Erosion is getting so bad around that World that the lowlands are starting to fill. Within a few years, mountains may not even be recognizable. If this continues for the next 30 years, the Earth will actually become flat. If the earth is flat…you guessed it…it will stop revolving and moon will move to orbiting Mars. The worst case scenario is that the water on the Earth’s surface spills of the sides and all living things die for the lack of water. I anticipate that an article on this will be published in Nature with authors from the UN very soon”

Gabro
Reply to  richard
June 29, 2017 12:18 pm

How dare Mars steal out moon!

Alan McIntire
June 29, 2017 1:38 pm

Based on theory, the 1 to 1 relationship should be between temperature and the LOGARITHM of the
change in CO2 in the air . I’m a global warming cynic, but I got a pretty significant result when I did this using both NOAA and UAH figures.
Year <-c(1980,1985,1990,1995,2000,2005,2010,2015)
NOAA Temp <-c(287.09,286.86,287.25,287.28,287.25,287.48,287.53,287.72)
UAH Temp <-c(287.09,286.87,287.11,287.22,286.90,287.38,287.67,287.38)
lnCO2 <-c(0,0.0223574,.0437740,.0607774,.0848716,.1116248,0.1370376,0.1645785)
When I ran a correlation, I got for NOAA temps, an increase of 3 C for doubled CO2, with p value of 0.125%
I got for UAH temps, an increase of 2.34 C for doubled CO2 with a p value of 4.5%
Needless to say, I think there were other reasons than the direct effect of changes in log CO2 versus changes in temperature creating this spurious relationship.

Gabro
Reply to  Alan McIntire
June 29, 2017 1:46 pm

CO2 is far from the only change in the air since 1980 or especially 1880, and also far from the most important.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Alan McIntire
June 29, 2017 3:57 pm

In reply to Gabro
I’m also aware of the spuriousness of cumulativevalues in time series,
https://www.academia.edu/21366801/THE_SPURIOUSNESS_OF_CORRELATIONS_BETWEEN_CUMULATIVE_VALUES?auto=download
and the arcsine rule.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/257/
The obvious flaw is that over the 35 year period, there was a net increase in CO2 and a net increase in temperature.
Per Munshi’s paper, the overall increase in both CO2 and Temperature is probably going to lead to a spurious correlation.
When I change the figures to
Change in temperature over the last 5 years,
Temp <-c(0,-0.23,0.39,0.03,-0.03,0.23,0.05,0.19)
and ln CO2 change over the last 5 years
lnCO2 <-c(0,0.0223574,.0214165,.0170035,.0240942,.0267532,0.0254128,0.0275409)
and run a correlation, I get a negligible correlation, and a p value of 0.5875, meaning that such an extreme deviance can happen by chance alone over 58% of the time.

Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 1:54 pm

I’ve listened to a lecture by Ivar Giaever. He said he just Googled global warming that morning and didn’t know what the fuss was all about. He didn’t seem to understand even the basics of climate science. Ditto Freeman Dyson. He said he didn’t know anything and might be wrong, but thought a bit of warming might be good.
So, if there is a wide, deep and longstanding consensus is, as there is with man-made global warming, based on the evidence as judged by experts, the opposite is true because a consensus is almost always wrong. Is that what you’re saying?
Evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics must be wrong too. It’s all very confusing. Thank you for your patience in explaining this to me.
By the way, are you a Nobel Laureate? If not you could be. Have a paper published in Nature or Science or another high impact journal. Millions of research scientists would be very pleased to see man-made global warming proved false. They’re not all involved in climate science you know and could use the money going for that research themselves for something else.
Good luck and God Bless. Steph.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Stephanie Hawking
June 29, 2017 2:01 pm

No, Stephanie; your “longstanding consensus” is based on an aberration where temperature rise coincided with CO2 increases for a short period of time. Before that time and afterwards, there is no correlation. The excuses for early 20th Century warming and the 21st Century hiatus are falling into disrepute.